View Full Version : How many Independent Characters?
MaltonNecromancer
10-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Had a bit of confusion over this; how many Independent Characters can join a single unit? Because we know they can all join each other to make a Death Star, but can you say, for example, stick Dante, a Librarian and a Sanguinary Priest all onto the same unit of Sanguinary Guard? Or is it, as I suspect, only one Independent Character per squad?
As a side note, can Independent Characters attach to Monstrous Creatures? Say Lelith Hesperax and Urien Rakarth attached to a Talos?
Diagnosis Ninja
10-12-2011, 04:44 PM
There isn't a limit. And if there is, it's news to me haha.
As for joining a Carnifex: no. There's a rule somewhere saying that you can't join a unit which normally consists of one model.
Kawauso
10-12-2011, 04:56 PM
Normally consists of one model?
Carnifexes can go in broods of 3.
If there is a rule like that, then that would mean that ICs can't join units of paladins in the GK codex; their minimum squad size is 1.
Lerra
10-12-2011, 05:20 PM
Any number of ICs can join a squad.
Carnifexes in 5th edition come in squads, so ICs can join them. You don't see it very often because there aren't many ICs in the Tyranid codex, and usually they're better off joining other units.
Tynskel
10-12-2011, 06:18 PM
another point of view is that ICs can't join a unit that comprises of one model on the board.
ie, a paladin who started as 1 model on the board will always be 1 model on the board (see the 'always' is in there), so there are those that would say you cannot attach an IC to the paladin unit.
Hive Mind
10-12-2011, 06:47 PM
And they'd be totally wrong. Oh wait, look at that it's Tynskel. Of course it's going to be utterly wrong.
The rule on p.48 of the BRB says that IC's can't join units that always consist of a single model. No mention anywhere of 'on the board'.
Hive Mind
10-12-2011, 06:55 PM
As for your other question, you can attach as many IC's as you want to a unit.
Always pissed me off in Dawn of War that you can only attach one IC per unit and that you couldn't attach Chaplains at all.
Caldera02
10-13-2011, 11:21 AM
The carnifex situation is the only thing that is outside the mold so to speak as I think they are the only monstrous creature than can form units. In my mind, if you only take one carni then no you can't attach IC's to them. If you take 2, then yes you can.
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 11:40 AM
The rules on p.48 say that you're wrong Caldera my old love. Carnifex are not a unit that always consist of a single model.
sangrail777
10-13-2011, 01:21 PM
HIVE MIND is right on this one.
Independent charectors are allowed to join other units.
They cannot however join vehichle squadrons (see vehicle section)
and units that always consist of a single model (like most vehicles
and monsrtous creatures). They can join other independent charectors though,
to form a powerfull multi-charactor unit!
page 48 5th edition rulebook.
0-1 units in an army is not the same as a single model unit.
The Twilight Fade
10-13-2011, 01:33 PM
Pretty much what I was going to say. Paladins and Fex's whilst they can be taken as a single model they don't always consist of a single model, therefore IC's can join them even when they are solo where as models like the tervigon simply can't ever have them attached
Wildeybeast
10-13-2011, 03:27 PM
The confusion over carnies comes from the phrase "units that always consist of a single model (like most vehicles and monstrous creatures)". GW is trying to be helpful by giving an example of what units are usually always taken as a single model, which monstrous creatures usually are. The key word is most. Carnies are a clear example of MC's that are taken as a unit. So as most people have said, you can attach as many IC's to a unit as you have in a unit, so long as that unit's entry in the army book does not state that you may only choose one model, which means you can buy a single carnifex and attach a Tyranid Prime (being the only Tyranid HQ with the IC rule) but I really don't know why you would want to do that.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 04:14 PM
what you just said makes no sense.
Every model on the board is part of a unit.
eg. A single tank is a unit.
3 land speeders squadron is a unit.
What the rule states is 'units that always consist of a single model...'.
What I am stating here is based upon one's perspective and how one decides interpret the rules.
One way to interpret the rules:
models on the board, regardless of codex entry. There is nothing in the codex entry preventing this interpretation. There's no special rule here overriding the rulebook.
A single model carnifex (or paladin, ect) is placed onto the board. For all intents and purposes, that is a single model unit from that point on. It is always going to be a single model unit, because there is no way to add another model to such unit. Hence, no ICs can join.
You could also interpret the rules in a different way:
Codex layout is in play, regardless of what's on the board.
Either way does not conflict with the rules system.
However, they may conflict with other players interpretations.
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Not sure if trolling or just really stupid.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 05:02 PM
Not sure if trolling or just really stupid.
Neither. Just pointing out that this is open to interpretation.
As a bug player, my first love (been collecting since '92), I see the rule can be interpreted both ways.
I lean toward 'the bug player could use all the help it can get', but personally, I think it is all rules shennanigans to get a 'cover save' for the carnifex and 'T6' for the Prime.
That's what this really what this comes down to. min-maxing.
That takes away from the 'spirit' of the game.
SeattleDV8
10-13-2011, 05:07 PM
A single model carnifex (or paladin, ect) is placed onto the board. For all intents and purposes, that is a single model unit from that point on. It is always going to be a single model unit, because there is no way to add another model to such unit. Hence, no ICs can join.
The problem with this interpretation is the when the unit an IC has joined is reduced to a single model.
Is the IC forced to 'unjoin' because the unit is now a single model?
The Codex tells us if the Unit is 'always' a single model.
Even if the unit is currently a single model, the fact that it could be larger allows the IC to join.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 05:12 PM
The problem with this interpretation is the when the unit an IC has joined is reduced to a single model.
Is the IC forced to 'unjoin' because the unit is now a single model?
The Codex tells us if the Unit is 'always' a single model.
Even if the unit is currently a single model, the fact that it could be larger allows the IC to join.
No, because the unit already began on the board with multiple models.
There's a difference being whittled down to a single model, and starting as a single model.
Whittled down is not 'always' a single model unit.
Also, no, from the standpoint that the unit cannot some how grow any larger during the battle. This interpretation is based upon the perspective from the board (which is a logical interpretation since all of the rules have to do with units interacting with the board).
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 05:45 PM
As soon as you can point to the wording 'on the board' on p48 of the Rulebook I'll agree that yours is a valid interpretation. Until then, it's just more idiocy from someone who seems to go out of their way to place ridiculous spins on perfectly straightforward rules.
As an aside, if the IC joined the unit pre-deployment then the unit wouldn't 'always consist of a single model' on the board under your interpretation, right? So an IC could form a unit with, say... a Land Raider.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 06:17 PM
Funny you should say that, because 1) ICs cannot join vehicles and 2) the instant you would enter the board you would be violating the rules, whether you use either interpretations. That's a conundrum.
Besides, even if your models are in reserve, they still has to deal with board.
I guess *your* entire unit would cease to exist, right, since *you* are violating the rules before entering the board?
Seriously, Hivemind. You are one of the most antagonistic members on this forum.
4 out of your 5 posts on this thread, alone, are condescending.
No wonder people have ceased to ask interesting rules questions on this forum--- because the instant they say something that you disagree with, you just call them and idiot, or say something demeaning, ect.
You win the prize.
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 07:17 PM
Funny you should say that, because 1) ICs cannot join vehicles and 2) the instant you would enter the board you would be violating the rules, whether you use either interpretations. That's a conundrum.
Do you even own the Rulebook? p48 says "[t]hey cannot, however, join vehicle squadrons... and units that always consist of a single model (like most vehicles and monstrous creatures)." My emphasis.
If your argument is that "always consists of a single model" means "always consists of a single model on the board" then a Vindicator that has had an IC attached pre-deployment would not "always consist of a single model on the board" or be a vehicle squadron and would therefore be a legal unit according to your interpretation.
It's not a conundrum at all, it's an absurd scenario that directly results from your absurd and downright stupid 'interpretation'. It can also be neatly avoided by applying the rule as it is written; are Vindicators a unit that always consist of a single model? Yes they are. Ergo, ICs cannot join them. Are Carnifex/Paladins a unit that always consists of a single model? No they are not, ergo ICs can join them.
Seriously, Hivemind. You are one of the most antagonistic members on this forum.
4 out of your 5 posts on this thread, alone, are condescending.
No wonder people have ceased to ask interesting rules questions on this forum--- because the instant they say something that you disagree with, you just call them and idiot, or say something demeaning, ect.
You win the prize.
The only member of this forum I have ever called an idiot is you. The only posts in this thread that are condescending are the three that are aimed at you. Unless you mean I'm condescending to Caldera because I called him/her 'my old love'? If so, you'd be wrong again; 'my old love' is a term of endearment in Britain.
There is a reason I have called you an idiot and am condescending towards you; you're an idiot who has proved utterly unworthy of any respect whatsoever.
It can be interpreted either way, but I think Hive Mind is right here (as hard as that may be to believe).
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 08:01 PM
as I said before, you would be breaking the rules attaching the IC to a vehicle. Thereby, you could not enter the board. It doesn't matter which interpretation you use, you are still violating the rules when you try to place the models on board.
You also forget, that an IC doesn't count toward the single model unit size. ICs have special rules that allow them to join units. They don't become permanent additions to a unit, therefore your example still makes no sense.
Maybe in this thread, you are just being condescending towards me. However, your comments are consistently a downer in most threads. That's the difference between the likes of you vs the likes of me. You are consistently an demeaning, condescending, and just straight up mean all the time. I am only mean to posters like you.
Old_Paladin
10-13-2011, 08:30 PM
The only member of this forum I have ever called an idiot is you.
Unless you mean I'm condescending to Caldera because I called him/her 'my old love'? If so, you'd be wrong again; 'my old love' is a term of endearment in Britain.
And Me.
And I'm guessing that you realize that many members of this forum are not british, and that that phrase does come across as condesending/rude to north americans.
Tynskel is correct about how your personality is perceived as abrasive.
That aside...
Hive Mind is correct about this rule, IMO.
It seems perfectly clear that the rule means non-vehicle units that can never be more then 1, under any circumstances.
Anything that has a 1+ option for unit members can be non-single, but chooses not to be.
Anything that was above one member but is now reduced to one, can be a larger unit, but took too many casualties.
For Tynskel's example of 'once placed on the board,' those units still could have been more then a single member; there is still the possiblity of that pre-deployment.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 08:37 PM
What I am trying to point out is that when you purchase only one carnifex, at no point during the game can you add another carnifex. It is 'always' a unit of one.
Simply an interpretation of the rules.
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 08:41 PM
as I said before, you would be breaking the rules attaching the IC to a vehicle. Thereby, you could not enter the board. It doesn't matter which interpretation you use, you are still violating the rules when you try to place the models on board.
Except that the rules on p48 do not prohibit attaching an IC to a vehicle if we run with your ludicrous 'interpretation'. Only attaching them to vehicle squadrons is explicitly prohibited. I know that's decidely inconvenient for you, but you can't simply ignore that the rules do not say that an IC cannot be attached to a vehicle to form a unit.
You also forget, that an IC doesn't count toward the single model unit size. ICs have special rules that allow them to join units. They don't become permanent additions to a unit, therefore your example still makes no sense.
Oh, they don't count? Because you just said so? There is literally nothing in the Rulebook (or logic) to support this.
Whether they are permanent additions or not is utterly irrelevant. All that is relevant is that if we use your bloody stupid 'interpretation' an IC can be attached to a Predator (not a vehicle squadron, remember?) pre-deployment to make a legal unit as the unit would not "always consist of a single model on the board." Even if the IC left the unit in the first movement phase, the unit would not "always consist of a single model on the board." As you and your awful grammar said; "see the 'always' is in there".
Let's go through the checklist shall we?
1. Is the unit a vehicle squadron? No it is not.
2. Does the unit always consist of a single model on the board? No, it does not.
Ergo, the IC can be attached under your 'interpretation'.
You have utterly failed to say why this is not the case; all you have done is fabricated more rules to get you out of the mess your fabricated rule got you into, a mess that following the rule as it is written in the Rulebook avoids completely.
Maybe in this thread, you are just being condescending towards me. However, your comments are consistently a downer in most threads. That's the difference between the likes of you vs the likes of me. You are consistently an demeaning, condescending, and just straight up mean all the time. I am only mean to posters like you.
Cry me a river, princess. I don't give a flying **** about what you think of me.
And Me.
And I'm guessing that you realize that many members of this forum are not british, and that that phrase does come across as condesending/rude to north americans.
Tynskel is correct about how your personality is perceived as abrasive.
I've never called you an idiot. I pointed out that your interpretation of the law in one thread (the only thread I've ever dealt with you) was laughably wrong.
I don't particularly care how many of you are from North America. If you want to get worked into a lather about an innocent phrase used innocently then that's your problem, not mine.
Tynskel
10-13-2011, 08:49 PM
hahahah!
So you think you can attach to a vehicle, eh? There are simply none.
Don't give me wonk about artillery--- they don't follow any vehicle rule other than having an 'armor value'.
bwahahha. I haven't made up a single rule here. That's the funny thing---- you keep defending your vehicle thing----- that's making up rules!
bwahahah!
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 08:57 PM
An incredibly weak attempt to deflect. The point remains that under your 'interpretation' you can attach an IC to a Predator or a Whirlwind or a Battlewagon.
Whether you call them vehicles or whether you call them Tanks makes no difference.
Old_Paladin
10-13-2011, 09:14 PM
Having re-read through this start to finish again;
Hive Mind, I think you're missing Tynskel's point.
He means that you have to obey the same rule at ALL times, both before and after being 'on the board'.
You cannot have the IC join a vehicle pregame, as he cannot join a single member unit. He thinks you cannot join 'on the board' because at that point it will always [continue to] be a single member unit (and arguably that once you have completed the army list and said 'want to play a game' you cannot change the army list; so for the whole game (even before set up), it cannot be anything other then a single member unit).
At this point, you guys are taking past each other; and not even remotely talking about the same thing.
Hive Mind
10-13-2011, 09:39 PM
That is not what he meant but he's lucky that you thought up that escape route for him.
Regardless, none of this "on the board" nonsense is even hinted at by the rules on p48 and no matter what rot Tynskel can dream up, a Carnifex/Paladin unit does not always consist of a single model. It can do so, but it does not always do so.
SeattleDV8
10-14-2011, 01:46 AM
Agreed, there is no 'on the board' wording.
Just because someone can think up another interpretation does not mean it has any merit.
The wording on this rule is clear.
IC's can join Units.
There are two exceptions, vehicles and units that are always a single model.
The Carnifex, Paladin or even Mordrak and Thawn are not always a single model.
They all can be played as a singleton (or in Thawn's case become one), but they are not always a single model.
Therefore an IC may join them, alone or not.
Tynskel
10-14-2011, 06:57 AM
Having re-read through this start to finish again;
Hive Mind, I think you're missing Tynskel's point.
He means that you have to obey the same rule at ALL times, both before and after being 'on the board'.
You cannot have the IC join a vehicle pregame, as he cannot join a single member unit. He thinks you cannot join 'on the board' because at that point it will always [continue to] be a single member unit (and arguably that once you have completed the army list and said 'want to play a game' you cannot change the army list; so for the whole game (even before set up), it cannot be anything other then a single member unit).
At this point, you guys are taking past each other; and not even remotely talking about the same thing.
He's got it!
And yes, this is exactly what I meant. You cannot change your list once you have started. The carnifex is Always a unit of one if you only purchase one carnifex.
This is simply a way to interpret the rules.
You don't have to play this way. (although, you might if you want to play me. But, Hivemind, you have already proven yourself as a horrible person. I wouldn't want to play with you!)
Pikante
10-14-2011, 12:47 PM
Agreed, there is no 'on the board' wording.
Just because someone can think up another interpretation does not mean it has any merit.
The wording on this rule is clear.
IC's can join Units.
There are two exceptions, vehicles and units that are always a single model.
The Carnifex, Paladin or even Mordrak and Thawn are not always a single model.
They all can be played as a singleton (or in Thawn's case become one), but they are not always a single model.
Therefore an IC may join them, alone or not.
^ this.
The real question is not how many ICs can join a given unit at once, it's how many units a given IC can join at once.
As far as I can tell, there's no limit.
Hive Mind
10-14-2011, 06:00 PM
"if the character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining"
So while it would be possible for the IC to be in coherency with multiple units, the owning player has to declare which one it has actually joined. Until the end of the Movement phase the IC could lead multiple units, but I can't think of any advantage to doing so...
So, a character can't join more than one unit in a given turn, but a character that's already attached to a unit can join still join another one without leaving the first.
Hive Mind
10-14-2011, 06:13 PM
Scratch the last part of what I said before.
"if a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of its Movement phase"
Take that with the quote I posted above and an IC that is attached to a unit or intends to join one cannot move into coherency with another unit, so cannot join it.
Scratch the last part of what I said before.
"if a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of its Movement phase"
Take that with the quote I posted above and an IC that is attached to a unit or intends to join one cannot move into coherency with another unit, so cannot join it.
Those two rules don't entail the conclusion that an IC which is attached to a unit cannot move into coherency with another unit.
An IC in coherency with two units chooses which one it will join.
An IC that can't join a unit can't move into coherency with it.
So?
An IC that is attached to a unit can end in coherency with another unit and then join it, as per the rules. Nothing you've posted suggests otherwise.
Hive Mind
10-14-2011, 06:23 PM
An IC that is attached to a unit can end in coherency with another unit and then join it, as per the rules.
That's correct, but to do so they would have to leave coherency with the unit they were previously leading as they must move more than 2" away from a unit that they do not intend to (or cannot) lead.
If they cannot be in coherency with two or more units simultaneously, they cannot join two or more units.
That's correct, but to do so they would have to leave coherency with the unit they were previously leading as they must move more than 2" away from a unit that they do not intend to (or cannot) lead.
There is no rule that says that an IC must leave coherency with the unit to which it is attached in order to enter coherency with another unit.
If they cannot be in coherency with two or more units simultaneously, they cannot join two or more units.
There is no rule that says that an IC cannot be in coherency with two or more units simultaneously.
Hive Mind
10-14-2011, 06:44 PM
There is no rule that says that an IC must leave coherency with the unit to which it is attached in order to enter coherency with another unit.
There is no rule that says that an IC cannot be in coherency with two or more units simultaneously.
The rules state that an IC can only join a unit by moving into coherency with it, right? The rules then state that if there are two units that the IC is eligible to join, the player must declare which. A further rule than states that an IC cannot be within 2" of a unit if they do not intend to (or cannot) join it.
Thus an IC can only be within 2" of a unit if they intend to join it. If they intend to join one unit then they cannot join another unit since you must declare which one they are joining and remain at least 2" away from a unit the IC does not intend to (or cannot) join.
You are correct in saying that an IC can leave coherency with one unit and move into coherency with another but you are incorrent when you say that there is no rule prohibiting an IC from being in coherency with two units.
To join a new unit the IC must leave coherency with their former unit.
That's not a valid conclusion, and I'll show you why:
I move my IC into coherency with unit A and join it at the end of the movement phase.
In the next turn, I move unit A and attached IC such that my IC is in coherency with unit B. I intend to join unit B and am able to, so I am allowed to do this.
I join unit B. I don't have to pick between joining unit A and joining unit B, because I am already attached to unit A and I never left it--joining it again is not an option.
I now have my IC attached to both unit A and unit B, following all of the rules.
Hive Mind
10-14-2011, 06:54 PM
That you never actually left unit A is immaterial, you are in effect joining unit A every movement phase that you're in coherency with them.
That you never actually left unit A is immaterial, you are in effect joining unit A every movement phase that you're in coherency with them.
This is not true in a grammatical sense and it isn't suggested anywhere by the rules.
An IC which joins a unit remains attached to that unit until it leaves them. This is what the rules say.
.
The rules do not say that ICs automatically leave and must rejoin units every turn.
SeattleDV8
10-14-2011, 07:56 PM
That's not a valid conclusion, and I'll show you why:
I move my IC into coherency with unit A and join it at the end of the movement phase.
In the next turn, I move unit A and attached IC such that my IC is in coherency with unit B. I intend to join unit B and am able to, so I am allowed to do this.
I join unit B. I don't have to pick between joining unit A and joining unit B, because I am already attached to unit A and I never left it--joining it again is not an option.
I now have my IC attached to both unit A and unit B, following all of the rules.
BRB pg. 48 Tells us an IC has to 'must declare' which Unit (singular) he is going to be joined if within 2" of more than one unit at the end of the movement phase.
It is wishful thinking believing than he can join more than one unit.
The rules imply (strongly) that he can only join one unit and do not give permission to join more than one.
Without that permisssion your easter egg does not work.
Tynskel
10-14-2011, 11:55 PM
This is not true in a grammatical sense and it isn't suggested anywhere by the rules.
An IC which joins a unit remains attached to that unit until it leaves them. This is what the rules say.
.
The rules do not say that ICs automatically leave and must rejoin units every turn.
you are on the right track here.
SeattleDV8
10-15-2011, 02:10 AM
Agreed, no argument with that .
BRB pg. 48 Tells us an IC has to 'must declare' which Unit (singular) he is going to be joined if within 2" of more than one unit at the end of the movement phase.
It is wishful thinking believing than he can join more than one unit.
The rules imply (strongly) that he can only join one unit and do not give permission to join more than one.
Without that permisssion your easter egg does not work.
You write "be joined," but (of course) that is a serious misrepresentation of the actual rule, which uses the active verb join rather than the passive verb be joined. The difference is significant.
I have a rule which tells me the circumstances under which an IC can join a unit. These circumstances say nothing about whether he is already attached to another unit.
The rules do give you permission to join more than one unit, and fail to imply the opposite at all--much less strongly.
I'm not sure why you would call it an easter egg, but it's clear that if no-one can provide any actual rules to back up an objection (and so far no-one has), then my easter egg does indeed work.
Wildeybeast
10-15-2011, 05:45 AM
What the rule states is 'units that always consist of a single model...'.
Yeah. It doesn't say 'units that always consist of a single model on the board'. The point is that a Mawloc is always a onemodel, it can never be otherwise. Whereas a Carnifex unit couldbe a one, two or three model unit. So, you cannot join an IC to a Mawloc because it is always a single model unit, whereas a carnifex is not always a single model unit, it could be otherwise. Always is not a subjective term, it is absolute and allows no variation. A mawloc is alwaysa single model unit whether it is placed on the table top, in reserve, dead or as an abstract concept in your codex. A Carnifex unit has the possibility, even abstractly, of consisting of more than one model. You really can't have different interpretations of the word always....
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 09:02 AM
This purely a perspective thing. A single carnifex is still always a single model.
You could count codex entry, if you wanted to. But the way the rulebook is written, you could ignore codex entry just as well, and only concern yourself with the models that are being used.
The question is what is the scope of the rulebook? That is not defined explicitly, and is open for interpretation.
This purely a perspective thing. A single carnifex is still always a single model.
You could count codex entry, if you wanted to. But the way the rulebook is written, you could ignore codex entry just as well, and only concern yourself with the models that are being used.
The question is what is the scope of the rulebook? That is not defined explicitly, and is open for interpretation.
I think I have to agree with Tynskel. I had always interpreted it the other way, but he makes a good point.
A unit, as the term is used by the rules, is a set of actual models in an army (on the board isn't exactly accurate, because a unit is still a unit if it has been destroyed or is still in reserve). By contrast, entry tends to be the way we refer to the option in the book that allows you to take a certain type of unit in your army.
So, if you include a lone carnifex in an army, that is a unit that will always consist of a single model--and is thus unjoinable.
It is possible to take units of two or three carnifices that could be joined, but these would be different units, even if tied to units of single carnifices through a single codex entry.
The unit is what the rules talk about and it is what is important--not the entry in the codex.
A single carnifex (or paladin or whatever) can't be joined by an IC unless it began as part of a larger unit.
Wildeybeast
10-15-2011, 10:19 AM
A unit, as the term is used by the rules, is a set of actual models in an army (on the board isn't exactly accurate, because a unit is still a unit if it has been destroyed or is still in reserve).
Incorrect. The entries in the army list section of all codexes, explicitly and repeatedly refers to each entry as a 'unit' (unit composition, unit profile, unit type, etc). They are already explicitly referred to as units in the rules before they are ever selected in your army list , never mind put on the table, They 'exist' if that is the right term, as units in your codex, abstract of the models placed on the table and the codex trumps the rulebook. As such, every entry in your codex army list is already a unit and so IC's can join any unit from your army which had the potential to consist of more than one model, such as carnifexes. As I've said, the rules are quite clear and there really isn't any room or need for interpretation here.
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 10:37 AM
p.3 rule states that the unit is made up of models. Not an abstraction as the codex refers to it.
You could, ignore the codex entry. The codex entry does not explicitly overrule a rulebook rule in this case.
I think Tynskel has fielded this objection in roughly the manner I would have.
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 11:05 AM
I think Tynskel has fielded this objection in roughly the manner I would have.
Everyone should know this:
Today is a dark day in the 40k universe: Bean and I have been agreeing with each other.
Hide your children!
Bury your money!
Something dark and sinister comes this way!
(must be the Necrons)
Wildeybeast
10-15-2011, 11:29 AM
It says that unit usually consist of models I agree, it does not say things only become units when you actually have models for them and select them in your army list as you have been arguing. The codex entry and the model itself combine to make the unit. Without the codex your model is simply a pretty lump of plastic. The model is the physical representation of the codex entry which describes the unit, thus it is unit before it is selected for your army, the model is simply a physical representation of it. I don't see how you can argue with this, but if you guys want to it is a free country I guess.
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 11:42 AM
you can't get around this by sloppily quoting the book: "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large, or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monsterous alien creature or a lone hero." All units are made up of models. That's what the sentence says.
Then the next page describes what units are (and of course the rest of the rulebook describes what they can do).
The codex entry just tells you what the models do, and what category they fall under.
The unit itself is what is brought to the table. If you do not have a model, you do not have a unit.
Hive Mind
10-15-2011, 12:21 PM
This is not true in a grammatical sense and it isn't suggested anywhere by the rules.
An IC which joins a unit remains attached to that unit until it leaves them. This is what the rules say.
.
The rules do not say that ICs automatically leave and must rejoin units every turn.
No, the rules do not explicitly say that an IC rejoins a unit every movement phase but since the only way the rules provide for an IC to be attached to a unit is to be within coherency distance of them at the end of the movement phase (when they must declare which unit they're joining) it is implicit that the IC cannot join unit B while they are joined to unit A.
There's also the a fortiori argument that if Tynskel agrees with you, you must be wrong.
Wildeybeast
10-15-2011, 12:45 PM
you can't get around this by sloppily quoting the book: "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large, or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monsterous alien creature or a lone hero." All units are made up of models. That's what the sentence says.
Then the next page describes what units are (and of course the rest of the rulebook describes what they can do).
The codex entry just tells you what the models do, and what category they fall under.
The unit itself is what is brought to the table. If you do not have a model, you do not have a unit.
Firstly I didn't quote the rulebook, I always use quotation marks when I quote something to make it clear when I am quoting, as is common practice in the english language, so I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of doing things I have not done. Secondly I agree that without a model you don't have a unit, but equally without the codex entry, you don't have a unit. You cannot apply most of the rules contained in the rule book without also using the codex entry.
Edit: Also, if you are going to accuse of others of sloppy quoting, you really ought to make sure your own quotes are accurate too. See if you can work out what you did wrong.
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 01:30 PM
hah, I have an extra comma in there.
Yes, you were paraphrasing, hence no quotes. However, you stated usually consists of models, and end there, implying thate there could be more to the rule than models (which allows for an opening for your codex interpretation). When you look at the sentence as a whole, the models part is just reduced to model, hence my statement: always made of models.
Tynskel
10-15-2011, 01:35 PM
There's also the a fortiori argument that if Tynskel agrees with you, you must be wrong.
You should eat my paint thinner–it will hurt you.
Oh wait, I am always wrong.
No, the rules do not explicitly say that an IC rejoins a unit every movement phase but since the only way the rules provide for an IC to be attached to a unit is to be within coherency distance of them at the end of the movement phase (when they must declare which unit they're joining) it is implicit that the IC cannot join unit B while they are joined to unit A.
There's also the a fortiori argument that if Tynskel agrees with you, you must be wrong.
I disagree, and (anyway) anyone who would hold an opponent to an "implicit" rule is basically a jerk.
Hive Mind
10-15-2011, 08:30 PM
I would argue that anyone who tried to get a single IC leading all their units is probably an unbearable rules-lawyer...
As support for my argument by the way, whenever an IC has a special rule that affects those they are attached to it is always "the unit..." that is affected, never "the units...".
It's not rules lawyering to refuse to play by rules that don't actually exist. =P
As for your support, could, at best, be construed as implication. Again, you don't actually have a rule that says what you are claiming is in the rules.
Who's the rules-lawyer--the guy who wants to play by what the rules say, or the guy who tries desperately to eek any last implication out of the rules he can find--as long as they support his preconceived notion of what the rules should be--and then holds those implications up as rules in their own right?
For the record (in case you didn't catch the implication) that first guy is me. The second guy is you. =P
Wildeybeast
10-16-2011, 07:52 AM
I disagree, and (anyway) anyone who would hold an opponent to an "implicit" rule is basically a jerk.
You could also argue that anyone trying to join an IC to two units at once is being a jerk.;)
The rules on IC's make clear that the IC is part of a unit and must obey the usual coherency rules. Since you cannot move one unit into coherency with another (coherency exisiting only within a single unit, not between multiple units), you cannot move an IC who is in coherency with unit A into coherency with unit B, without first having him move out of coherency with unit A, which, according to the IC rules, is how you leave a unit.
You could also argue that anyone trying to join an IC to two units at once is being a jerk.;)
You could. It would pretty much be the same as arguing that anyone trying to shoot you with his bolters is a jerk--by which I mean that it would be a completely ridiculous argument.
But you could certainly make it--I might see someone doing it if, for example, one wanted to play by a rule one had made up and was trying to distract away from the fact that said rule is a fabrication and not a real rule.
;)
The rules on IC's make clear that the IC is part of a unit and must obey the usual coherency rules. Since you cannot move one unit into coherency with another (coherency exisiting only within a single unit, not between multiple units), you cannot move an IC who is in coherency with unit A into coherency with unit B, without first having him move out of coherency with unit A, which, according to the IC rules, is how you leave a unit.
This seemed like a good argument, until I went and actually read the rules and realized that it is completely made up. An IC doesn't have to move into coherency with a unit to join it--an IC has to move "so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit."
Of course, this is something an IC can easily do while attached to a different unit, so your argument is quite unsound.
Wildeybeast
10-16-2011, 12:40 PM
This seemed like a good argument, until I went and actually read the rules and realized that it is completely made up. An IC doesn't have to move into coherency with a unit to join it--an IC has to move "so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit."
Of course, this is something an IC can easily do while attached to a different unit, so your argument is quite unsound.
Of course, if you read the rest of that bullet point, it goes on to make it clear that once you have moved him into coherency distance of unit, you have actually joined it, otherwise you may not move into coherency distance with it in the first place. It then goes on to say "While an independent character is part of a unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules." Its right there on p48. I think if you read all the rules on independent characters, it would probably clear this issue up for you. So to summarise:
an IC is part of a unit, so long as he is in coherency with it
one unit cannot be in coherency with another
an IC attached to one unit cannot move into coherency with another and so cannot join it without leaving the first unit
So, can we lay this to bed now and accept that you can only have an IC attahced to one unit at a time, or do you still find my argument 'unsound'?
Of course, if you read the rest of that bullet point, it goes on to make it clear that once you have moved him into coherency distance of unit, you have actually joined it, otherwise you may not move into coherency distance with it in the first place. It then goes on to say "While an independent character is part of a unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules." Its right there on p48. I think if you read all the rules on independent characters, it would probably clear this issue up for you. So to summarise:
an IC is part of a unit, so long as he is in coherency with it
one unit cannot be in coherency with another
an IC attached to one unit cannot move into coherency with another and so cannot join it without leaving the first unit
So, can we lay this to bed now and accept that you can only have an IC attahced to one unit at a time, or do you still find my argument 'unsound'?
There is no reason to believe that one unit cannot be in coherency with another unit.
It is true that an Independent character can't be in coherency with a unit while it is not part of that unit, but it can meet all of the requirements for joining a given unit while attached to a different unit, join the given unit, and then be in coherency with both.
I have read all of the rules in the IC section. Nothing in these rules prevents an IC from being attached to two different units simultaneously. Your argument still rests on an assertion which isn't present in the rules, and is thus unsound.
Are you ready to put this to rest, or are you going to keep inventing more "rules" on which to base your position?
Hive Mind
10-16-2011, 05:08 PM
As for implicit rules ol' Bean (not demeaning, just British), what do you allow your opponents to do with Techmarines?
Tynskel
10-16-2011, 09:03 PM
I am not sure what you mean by that one, because they are FAQed.
SeattleDV8
10-16-2011, 09:43 PM
Nothing in these rules prevents an IC from being attached to two different units simultaneously. Your argument still rests on an assertion which isn't present in the rules, and is thus unsound.
This is where your argument falls apart.
Yes there is no rule telling us that an IC can not be attached to two units, likewise there is no rule telling us they can't shoot lasers from their eyes.
That doesn't matter in the least.
What you don't have is permission to join two units at the same time.
Without this permission you're not allowed to do it.
You have not even come close to showing that.
This is where your argument falls apart.
Yes there is no rule telling us that an IC can not be attached to two units, likewise there is no rule telling us they can't shoot lasers from their eyes.
That doesn't matter in the least.
What you don't have is permission to join two units at the same time.
Without this permission you're not allowed to do it.
You have not even come close to showing that.
This argument is spurious. I actually went through exactly the steps involved in getting an IC attached to two separate units, showing how each step was permitted by the rules. Since you apparently missed it, I will do it again.
Imagine turn A and turn B, with turn A coming prior to turn B; unit X and unit Y, and Independent Character Z.
Turn A, I move Z to within 2" of unit X and declare that Z is joining X. This is allowed for by the rules for joining independent characters to units.
Turn B, I move unit X (which now includes Z) such that Z is within 2" of unit Y, and declare that Z is joining Y. This is allowed for by the rules for joining independent characters to units.
Now Z is attached to both X and Y, using nothing but actions clearly allowed by the rules and breaking no other rules in the process.
Hive Mind:
As for the techmarine, I've never played against one and I'm not that familiar with their rules, so I really have no idea what you're asking.
Wildeybeast
10-17-2011, 11:44 AM
There is no reason to believe that one unit cannot be in coherency with another unit.
It is true that an Independent character can't be in coherency with a unit while it is not part of that unit, but it can meet all of the requirements for joining a given unit while attached to a different unit, join the given unit, and then be in coherency with both.
I have read all of the rules in the IC section. Nothing in these rules prevents an IC from being attached to two different units simultaneously. Your argument still rests on an assertion which isn't present in the rules, and is thus unsound.
Are you ready to put this to rest, or are you going to keep inventing more "rules" on which to base your position?
Your position is 'the rules don't say I can't do it, so I can do whatever I like' and yet I am the one inventing rules? I shall try once again to make my position clear.
1) p12 "once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2 ". We call this 'unit coherency'." Seems pretty clear cut to me that unit coherency applies only to one unit and the models in it (note the singular).
2) p48 "while an independent character is part of unit, he must obey all the usual coherency rules." Which means he can only be in coherency with models from one unit, not two.
I would also like to point out that you are perhaps taking a different approach to the rules to I (and everyone I've ever met who plays this game). I view the rules as a guide to what I can do in game, where as for your posts you seem to be approaching them with the attitude that they only tell you what you can't do. I would argue that this approach is flawed, as the list of things you can't do would be far too long to publish, and somewhat redundant. For example, I don't need a rule to tell that a I can't flop my unmentionables onto the table and use them as a land raider. So, no there is no rule explicitly saying that 'unit coherency only applies to models in a single unit and one unit cannot be in coherency with another', but that is because they have made it blatantly obvious in the rules on coherency and they don't feel the need to waster paper repeating it using slightly more obvious words. Equally they have not put in a rule saying IC's cannot be attached to two units at once because they have made it clear previously that you can only be in coherency within a single unit.
Tell me, do you honestly and truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that you can have one IC leading round a string of 5 or 6 units, all merged into one super unit of death? If you do, then ok, you play the game very differently to I and I shall stop trying to change your mind and wasting both our time.
lattd
10-17-2011, 12:01 PM
Check the 40k FAQ qhich actually says two units cannot be in coherency with each other.
Your position is 'the rules don't say I can't do it, so I can do whatever I like' and yet I am the one inventing rules? I shall try once again to make my position clear.
This is not in any way my position. I have made this clear twice now, and I will explain it again below, since you appear to have be having difficulty understanding it.
1) p12 "once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2 ". We call this 'unit coherency'." Seems pretty clear cut to me that unit coherency applies only to one unit and the models in it (note the singular).
2) p48 "while an independent character is part of unit, he must obey all the usual coherency rules." Which means he can only be in coherency with models from one unit, not two.
It's true--the rules for unit coherency only deal with single units. After moving each single unit, you must check to ensure that that unit is in coherency. If an IC is attached to that unit, it must also obey the coherency rules with regard to that unit.
However, this does nothing to prevent an IC from being attached to two units. It merely means that the IC must follow the coherency rules for both--i.e. that at the end of the first unit's movement it must be in coherency with them, and at the end of the second units movement it must be coherency with them.
The fact that the coherency rules are written to deal with a unit at a time in no way constitutes a rule against an IC being part of two separate units simultaneously.
I would also like to point out that you are perhaps taking a different approach to the rules to I (and everyone I've ever met who plays this game). I view the rules as a guide to what I can do in game, where as for your posts you seem to be approaching them with the attitude that they only tell you what you can't do. I would argue that this approach is flawed, as the list of things you can't do would be far too long to publish, and somewhat redundant. For example, I don't need a rule to tell that a I can't flop my unmentionables onto the table and use them as a land raider. So, no there is no rule explicitly saying that 'unit coherency only applies to models in a single unit and one unit cannot be in coherency with another', but that is because they have made it blatantly obvious in the rules on coherency and they don't feel the need to waster paper repeating it using slightly more obvious words. Equally they have not put in a rule saying IC's cannot be attached to two units at once because they have made it clear previously that you can only be in coherency within a single unit.
No, we're approaching the rules in the same way. The rules do give you permission to be attached to two units at once. I've demonstrated this twice.
The rules allow you to attach an IC to a unit as long as it meets certain requirements. An IC can meet those requirements while attached to a unit and without leaving that unit. Thus, an IC can potentially be attached to two units. That's all there is to it. The rules permit this to happen--not by simply failing to include a rule against it, but by including the means by which it can be done.
I am not and never have argued from the position that I can do anything the rules don't prohibit. This assertion on your part and on Seattle's part is entirely spurious, with no basis in fact whatsoever. It is a desperate evasion, an attack on a ridiculous straw man, and has no bearing on the discussion at all.
I have noted that more than once now that the rules do allow you to attach an IC to two separate units simultaneously. I have explained how this works. I have noted that there is no specific exception against this noted in the rules. This is a sufficient argument which you have in no way refuted, and are not now even trying to address.
Tell me, do you honestly and truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that you can have one IC leading round a string of 5 or 6 units, all merged into one super unit of death? If you do, then ok, you play the game very differently to I and I shall stop trying to change your mind and wasting both our time.
I've never seen it done, and I've never tried it. Honestly, I only really thought about it fairly recently--I had previously, like you, been laboring under the delusion that the rules failed to allow it.
Since realizing that it is, actually, allowed, I've been giving it some thought, and I'm not certain how I'm going to proceed--but I am certain of what the rules say, and your consistent failure to turn up any evidence at all to the contrary (and now your decision to resort to an obviously spurious representation of my position in order to give yourself something that you can attack successfully, however irrelevantly) have only reaffirmed my conclusions--as I presume they have for anyone who has bothered to read this conversation and is capable or rational thought.
Check the 40k FAQ qhich actually says two units cannot be in coherency with each other.
...and the parade of made-up rules continues. The 40k FAQ says nothing of the sort.
Sanguineone
10-17-2011, 02:11 PM
Hey guys, just jumped in at the last page of this thread.
I kind of get where you are coming from withe idea of attaching an IC to more than one unit at a time. Although I think the 'spirit' of this may be coverd in Joining and leaving a unit section for IC's. First bullet point states that if you come withing 2'' of more than one unit you must declare which unit you are joining. Also if you 'does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit it must remain more than 2'' away''.
There are very few units an IC can't join but these are in the core rulebook or special rules.......(don't get me started on the whole lone wolf special rules and the nature of Mephiston thing lol I still think pairing the Cheif with a Librarian Term would ward off the bullets......ops too late)........so.......don't you think that maybe the intention was to imply that they could only join one unit at a time? End of the day house rules though and it's all about the fun.
However.........and take this with a pinch of salt but isn't it already established that you can form 'SuperUnits' of IC's and really as they are all joined to each other (except Bob because he came with Carol) they are attached to more than one unit a time.......well technically only in the assault phase as that's the only time they don't count as part of the unit they have joined.
Hold on a sec, think the penny just dropped. They only count as being a unit on their own for assault and your standard unit can't join another standard unit. IC super units get around this by the very nature that any other IC would still be able to join them.
IC's being attached to a unit essentially makes them an upgrade character in all except assault and as we know upgrade characters can't join another unit.................unless it's a IC ( I think?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)
Does that seem right?
Sanguineone
10-17-2011, 02:16 PM
Hey guys, just jumped in at the last page of this thread.
I kind of get where you are coming from withe idea of attaching an IC to more than one unit at a time. Although I think the 'spirit' of this may be coverd in Joining and leaving a unit section for IC's. First bullet point states that if you come withing 2'' of more than one unit you must declare which unit you are joining. Also if you 'does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit it must remain more than 2'' away''.
There are very few units an IC can't join but these are in the core rulebook or special rules.......(don't get me started on the whole lone wolf special rules and the nature of Mephiston thing lol I still think pairing the Cheif with a Librarian Term would ward off the bullets......ops too late)........so.......don't you think that maybe the intention was to imply that they could only join one unit at a time? End of the day house rules though and it's all about the fun.
However.........and take this with a pinch of salt but isn't it already established that you can form 'SuperUnits' of IC's and really as they are all joined to each other (except Bob because he came with Carol) they are attached to more than one unit a time.......well technically only in the assault phase as that's the only time they don't count as part of the unit they have joined.
Hold on a sec, think the penny just dropped. They only count as being a unit on their own for assault and your standard unit can't join another standard unit. IC super units get around this by the very nature that any other IC would still be able to join them.
IC's being attached to a unit essentially makes them an upgrade character in all except assault and as we know upgrade characters can't join another unit.................unless it's a IC ( I think?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)
Does that seem right?
Sanguineone
10-17-2011, 02:17 PM
sorry that was my first ever post........duplication really not needed.....
Hey guys, just jumped in at the last page of this thread.
I kind of get where you are coming from withe idea of attaching an IC to more than one unit at a time. Although I think the 'spirit' of this may be coverd in Joining and leaving a unit section for IC's. First bullet point states that if you come withing 2'' of more than one unit you must declare which unit you are joining. Also if you 'does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit it must remain more than 2'' away''.
There are very few units an IC can't join but these are in the core rulebook or special rules.......(don't get me started on the whole lone wolf special rules and the nature of Mephiston thing lol I still think pairing the Cheif with a Librarian Term would ward off the bullets......ops too late)........so.......don't you think that maybe the intention was to imply that they could only join one unit at a time? End of the day house rules though and it's all about the fun.
Was that the intention? Maybe--it certainly is true that an IC can only join one unit at a time. The rules make that clear.
However, that doesn't speak to the IC's ability to be joined to more than one unit at a time.
And, sure--obviously, no one has to play this way if they don't want to. The question, really, is what the rules say--not to speculate about intention or tell anyone that they absolutely must play a certain way--and that's the issue I'm interested in addressing.
However.........and take this with a pinch of salt but isn't it already established that you can form 'SuperUnits' of IC's and really as they are all joined to each other (except Bob because he came with Carol) they are attached to more than one unit a time.......well technically only in the assault phase as that's the only time they don't count as part of the unit they have joined.
Hold on a sec, think the penny just dropped. They only count as being a unit on their own for assault and your standard unit can't join another standard unit. IC super units get around this by the very nature that any other IC would still be able to join them.
IC's being attached to a unit essentially makes them an upgrade character in all except assault and as we know upgrade characters can't join another unit.................unless it's a IC ( I think?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)
Does that seem right?
An interesting though, but (I think) not a sufficient one. An independent character doesn't suddenly become an upgrade character while attached to a unit. In some ways it behaves like one, but (for example) it is allowed to leave the unit (if it were an upgrade character, it would not be) and, more importantly, the rules never tell us to start treating it like and upgrade character. It remains an IC, it just behaves a little differently while attached to a unit.
None of these differences in behavior, though, preventing from joining a unit in the manner described by the rules.
Wildeybeast
10-17-2011, 02:41 PM
Ok Bean, you seem convinced that coherency applies between seperate units and not individual units and have rejected that argument out of hand, so I'm not going to convice you on that approach, so let me try another.
Assuming you are correct and you can atttach an IC to more than one unit, what happens then? Are they now one big unit, or still multiple seperate ones?
So, IC is attached to units A,B & C following your process. I shoot at unit A with bolters and inflict multiple hits. Now, as part of unit A, the IC is hit. But he is also part of units B & C, so they are by extension also hit, giving you the opportunity to spread hits out amongst three units.
Another example. You assult me with unit A, units B & C are out of assault range. Yet because the IC is a member of unit A, he counts as being engaged in combat, which means as a member of units B & C, they are also in combat, despite being not being able to be under the normal assult rules.
What happens if you move unit A & B, but not C, yet due to positioning the IC remains in coherency with all three. Does unit C count as moving for shooting because the IC was in a unit that moved? Do units A, B & C all have to fire at the same target?
I personally find all these situations stupid and unfair, yet if you are allowed to attach an IC to multiple units, they are all possible. I would be interested to know how you propose to deal with this situation, given it is not covered anywhere in the rules (which to me is an strong indication that this is not meant to happen).
Ok Bean, you seem convinced that coherency applies between seperate units and not individual units and have rejected that argument out of hand, so I'm not going to convice you on that approach, so let me try another.
Assuming you are correct and you can atttach an IC to more than one unit, what happens then? Are they now one big unit, or still multiple seperate ones?
So, IC is attached to units A,B & C following your process. I shoot at unit A with bolters and inflict multiple hits. Now, as part of unit A, the IC is hit. But he is also part of units B & C, so they are by extension also hit, giving you the opportunity to spread hits out amongst three units.
Another example. You assult me with unit A, units B & C are out of assault range. Yet because the IC is a member of unit A, he counts as being engaged in combat, which means as a member of units B & C, they are also in combat, despite being not being able to be under the normal assult rules.
What happens if you move unit A & B, but not C, yet due to positioning the IC remains in coherency with all three. Does unit C count as moving for shooting because the IC was in a unit that moved? Do units A, B & C all have to fire at the same target?
I personally find all these situations stupid and unfair, yet if you are allowed to attach an IC to multiple units, they are all possible. I would be interested to know how you propose to deal with this situation, given it is not covered anywhere in the rules (which to me is an strong indication that this is not meant to happen).
Here you do hit on the big question, and it is not one to which I have an answer. I've been working it over my head, and I think that there are two options:
One, they all act as a single unit thanks to the fact that the IC must act as part of each unit.
Two, they act as separate units, with the IC acting with each unit individually but maintaining coherency with each. This seems like a bad option, because (as you note) problems arise when one unit is charged: if the IC might be forced to move out of coherency with the other unit, but would not be allowed to as it is forced to maintain coherency with them and cannot leave them in the assault phase. Perhaps it must simply move as far as it can without leaving coherency with the second unit, forcing the charged unit to stretch out to whatever degree is necessary to accommodate the IC's mandated position.
It might even be the case that the whole enterprise is so unworkable that a house-rule against this activity is necessary--I certainly intend to discuss it with my opponents before I begin doing it.
However, none of that serves to change what the rules are. It is one thing to say, "the rules produce an undesirable or unworkable result, so we should play by slightly different rules." It is quite another to say, "the rules produce an undesirable or unworkable result, so we should not believe that the rules are actually the way they are."
The rules remain the rules whether they produce results we like or not. We can choose to play by different rules (we often do--for instance, the rules don't actually prohibit firing on units that are engaged in combat, but I always play with such a house rule, anyway) but in a discussion of the rules, it's important to divorce our dislike of the consequences of the rules from our understanding of what the rules actually are, and this argument relies on an explicit failure to do just that.
So, you raise a good point. It doesn't actually constitute an objection to my position, though.
Wildeybeast
10-17-2011, 03:20 PM
The rules remain the rules whether they produce results we like or not. We can choose to play by different rules (we often do--for instance, the rules don't actually prohibit firing on units that are engaged in combat, but I always play with such a house rule, anyway) but in a discussion of the rules, it's important to divorce our dislike of the consequences of the rules from our understanding of what the rules actually are, and this argument relies on an explicit failure to do just that.
I think if you feel it necessary to introduce a house rule that says you can't shoot your own men, then you are following the letter of the law a little too precisely and you have missed the 'common sense' element that GW took when writing them. More importantly it means we are polar opposites in our approach to the game and will not find any common ground on this issue, so if you want to play that you can have one IC attached to multiple units, go right ahead. Good luck finding anyone who lets you get away with that in a game, but I'm done here.
I think if you feel it necessary to introduce a house rule that says you can't shoot your own men, then you are following the letter of the law a little too precisely and you have missed the 'common sense' element that GW took when writing them. More importantly it means we are polar opposites in our approach to the game and will not find any common ground on this issue, so if you want to play that you can have one IC attached to multiple units, go right ahead. Good luck finding anyone who lets you get away with that in a game, but I'm done here.
I wasn't talking about shooting your own units--that is clearly prohibited by the rules. I was talking about firing on enemy units in combat. There's a rule which prevents units in combat from suffering casualties except by a handful of exceptions, but none that prevent them from being shot at.
Anyway, I basically think that it is "common sense" to read the rules, figure out what they actually say, and go from there.
Sure, we all know that GW is sloppy and there are rules that need to be patched up by house rules. I just think it is important to keep the actual rules and the house rules we implement to fix them separate in our comprehension of them.
But, fair. If we really are polar opposites and you really just don't care what the rules actually are, satisfied instead to believe that they are whatever you want them to be, that's fine.
At least you're willing to own up to it, and that should make it clear to others, at least, that we can't trust you to provide accurate renditions of the actual rules.
Tynskel
10-17-2011, 04:47 PM
Hahah!
Hive Mind
10-18-2011, 07:23 AM
As for the techmarine, I've never played against one and I'm not that familiar with their rules, so I really have no idea what you're asking.
A techmarine has a special rule called Blessing of the Omnissiah. This rule states that the techmarine can, if in base contact, attempt to repair a vehicle.
The Rulebook never actually defines what is meant by base contact. There is a drawing on p35 demonstrating models in base contact however, which shows assault marines whose bases are touching the bases of some gretchin. Now, with your dogged determination to only pay heed to that which is explicit in the Rulebook, base contact could then only mean 'base-to-base contact'. Vehicles, as I'm sure you're aware rarely have bases, thus it is an impossibility for a techmarine to move into base contact with a vehicle unless you allow that it is implicit that base contact actually means to have the models base in contact with anything, not just another base.
This is merely one of numerous examples where implicit rules come into play.
Your idea that ICs can join numerous units is doomed to failure for all the reasons I've previously stated.
A techmarine has a special rule called Blessing of the Omnissiah. This rule states that the techmarine can, if in base contact, attempt to repair a vehicle.
The Rulebook never actually defines what is meant by base contact. There is a drawing on p35 demonstrating models in base contact however, which shows assault marines whose bases are touching the bases of some gretchin. Now, with your dogged determination to only pay heed to that which is explicit in the Rulebook, base contact could then only mean 'base-to-base contact'. Vehicles, as I'm sure you're aware rarely have bases, thus it is an impossibility for a techmarine to move into base contact with a vehicle unless you allow that it is implicit that base contact actually means to have the models base in contact with anything, not just another base.
This is merely one of numerous examples where implicit rules come into play.
Your idea that ICs can join numerous units is doomed to failure for all the reasons I've previously stated.
Interesting, but you have yet to offer even one rules-based reason to believe that an IC can't be joined to two units simultaneously. =P
If by "doomed to failure" you mean, "likely to be ignored because it produces dumb results," well, that's fine--but that doesn't really constitute an objection to anything I've said.
Hive Mind
10-18-2011, 08:26 AM
le sigh.
I have outlined very clearly why you can't do it and I've used the exact wording on p48 to explain and illustrate. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read my posts. Keep in mind that implicit rules do, in fact, play a large part of the game even when they're inconvenient for your position.
Wildeybeast
10-18-2011, 09:52 AM
But, fair. If we really are polar opposites and you really just don't care what the rules actually are, satisfied instead to believe that they are whatever you want them to be, that's fine.
At least you're willing to own up to it, and that should make it clear to others, at least, that we can't trust you to provide accurate renditions of the actual rules.
Sorry but I'm not letting that one go. My point was you have an incorrect understanding of the rules and are blind to it, so like arguing with a creationist, it is utterly pointless, but I was trying to be polite. Yet I'm actually not willing to let it go after that comments like that.
The IC rules clearly state that he must follow the rules on unit coherency. The rules on unit coherency clearly only apply to one unit, as I have demonstrated. If we are talking about what the 'rules really are' then show me a single reference that says coherency exists between units or one that says you can be part of two units at once. Show me one of those (and not this nonsense you keep trotting out about having followed the correct process for joining units or there is no rule saying coherency doesn;t exist between units), show me an actual rule which says this and I will be admit you are right. I won't admit that, because you cant provide one of those rules because they don't exist.
Tynskel
10-18-2011, 12:20 PM
No, the point is that coming to the rules set with a preconceived set of notions (that are not derived from the rulebook) for interpreting the rules within the rulebook is flawed.
What Bean is stating is that allowing the 99% (or even 100%) of players, who play the game a certain way, dictate what a rules states, even though the rule does not physically state so, is wrong. Acknowledging this is what Bean is pointing out.
What has occurred, in this instance, is a 'norm' for playing the game. A 'norm' is not a real rule, but is a custom that others are using to enforce a certain way of thought. 'Norms' will often become laws (or in this case a rule), but what Bean is pointing out is that the 'norm' in this case is not written in the rulebook.
le sigh.
I have outlined very clearly why you can't do it and I've used the exact wording on p48 to explain and illustrate. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read my posts. Keep in mind that implicit rules do, in fact, play a large part of the game even when they're inconvenient for your position.
I've addressed and refuted each of your arguments. I agree that it's probably best not to repeat your errors.
There is no such thing as an implicit rule. There are rules and there are things that you make up and try to pass off as rules. Try not to confuse the two in the future.
Sorry but I'm not letting that one go. My point was you have an incorrect understanding of the rules and are blind to it, so like arguing with a creationist, it is utterly pointless, but I was trying to be polite. Yet I'm actually not willing to let it go after that comments like that.
I have explained the rules from which my position derives. I have shown how they prove my assertions. You have failed to offer any refutation of my arguments.
The IC rules clearly state that he must follow the rules on unit coherency. The rules on unit coherency clearly only apply to one unit, as I have demonstrated.
This is irrelevant, as I've already demonstrated. The rules on unit coherency do talk about single units. So what?
The IC can be part of one unit and part of another, and be in coherency with both, evaluated a unit at a time.
Nothing about the wording of the coherency rules prevents a model from being part of two units simultaneously or being in coherency with two units simultaneously. There is no justification for that assertion at all.
If we are talking about what the 'rules really are' then show me a single reference that says coherency exists between units or one that says you can be part of two units at once. Show me one of those (and not this nonsense you keep trotting out about having followed the correct process for joining units or there is no rule saying coherency doesn;t exist between units), show me an actual rule which says this and I will be admit you are right. I won't admit that, because you cant provide one of those rules because they don't exist.
Page 48:
"In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase."
This rule allows independent characters which are attached to units to join other units.
I presume this lays the matter to rest, as, in the absence of other rules which prohibit an IC from being attached to two units, this rule is sufficient to allow it.
I've actually said this before. If you'd read my post, you'd have known that the majority of the content of yours is incorrect.
If you're looking for a rule that says "an IC can be attached to two units at the same time," of course there isn't one. Of course, if this is a requirement, then no IC can join any unit.
After all, there is no rule that says that an IC can join a space marine unit--or a non-space marine unit, or a unit within 12" of an enemy unit, or a unit composed of more than two models, or a unit composed of less than two models, or a unit outside its deployment zone, or a unit more than 12" of an enemy unit.
In all of these cases--in any conceivable set of specific circumstances--ICs are only allowed to join units by way of the rules on page 48. There is no discussion of specific circumstances at all, except for specific circumstances which prevent an IC from joining a unit. Being attached to a unit is not one of those listed exceptions. Neither is being a Farseer. Or being a Warboss. Thus, Farseers, Warbosses, and ICs which are attached to units may join units by following the rules on page 48.
If your contention truly is that there must be a specific note stating that IC's are allowed to join units while already attached to units, consistency demands that you require a specific not stating that IC's in every other possible set of circumstances are allowed to join units. As the rules list no such sets of specifically permitted circumstances, consistency would demand that you believe that ICs are never allowed to join units.
Do you, or are you ready to admit that you're singling out this particular set of circumstances because of a baseless pre-conception.
Wildeybeast
10-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Right bean, lets try a different tack. You are suggesting something that, by your own admission creates massive problems, if not outright breaks the game, is possible. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So please answer me the following questions, with simple yes or no answers and rules quotes to support your point (either explict permission or outright refusals).
1) Do the rules on unit coherency apply between seperate units, rather than the models within a single unit?
2) When joined to a unit, is an IC part of it?
3) When part of a unit, does an IC have to obey the rules on coherency?
Right bean, lets try a different tack. You are suggesting something that, by your own admission creates massive problems, if not outright breaks the game, is possible. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So please answer me the following questions, with simple yes or no answers and rules quotes to support your point (either explict permission or outright refusals).
1) Do the rules on unit coherency apply between seperate units, rather than the models within a single unit?
2) When joined to a unit, is an IC part of it?
3) When part of a unit, does an IC have to obey the rules on coherency?
First off, there's no "onus of proof" that arises from undesirable consequences. Even if there were, I've already proved my position.
Second:
No
Yes
Yes
Feel free to continue.
Hive Mind
10-18-2011, 11:13 PM
I think what might be the funniest part of all this Bean is that you're denying that an interaction of rules will create implicit rules, which is a feature of any system of rules anywhere, while simultaneously relying on an implicit rule that is not created by anything other than your strained interpretation of what p48 says.
But that's ok champ, if you keep denying that you're wrong you'll just magically become right even though p48, logic and consistent practice say that you're dead wrong.
I think what might be the funniest part of all this Bean is that you're denying that an interaction of rules will create implicit rules, which is a feature of any system of rules anywhere, while simultaneously relying on an implicit rule that is not created by anything other than your strained interpretation of what p48 says.
But that's ok champ, if you keep denying that you're wrong you'll just magically become right even though p48, logic and consistent practice say that you're dead wrong.
The results of the interactions of explicit rules are not "implicit rules," or at least not in the sense that I was using the term (or the sense in which I thought your camp was using it).
Anyway, that specific point is hardly relevant, since no rule interactions interfere with my conclusion. The rules support my assertion in its entirety, taken separately or on the whole. Page 48 tells me that I can do exactly what I am claiming I can do. No other rule contradicts or modifies the rules on page 48 in a relevant way.
So, no. I'm right. I've shown the rules and reasoning that mandate my conclusion time and time again. I've shown that all of your objections are flawed and baseless. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but if you're not going to offer anything of substance in the future, I'm just going to stop replying to you. If you ever were contributing anything of value to the discussion, you have clearly given up trying.
Kushial
10-19-2011, 01:45 AM
I'm just not getting how Bean thinks he's getting around the "must obey the usual coherency rules" on page 48. If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B. The only way the IC can move within two inches of a model in unit B in the movement phase would therefore be if the IC left unit A which gives him the ability to move close enough to unit B to join it thus forming unit B+.
It seems pretty clear cut on the rules to me and trying to get around it just seems like trying to take advantage of someone to me.
Hive Mind
10-19-2011, 05:14 AM
The results of the interactions of explicit rules are not "implicit rules," or at least not in the sense that I was using the term (or the sense in which I thought your camp was using it).
I see, implicit rules only exist when they support your case. Handy that, isn't it?
Anyway, that specific point is hardly relevant, since no rule interactions interfere with my conclusion. The rules support my assertion in its entirety, taken separately or on the whole. Page 48 tells me that I can do exactly what I am claiming I can do. No other rule contradicts or modifies the rules on page 48 in a relevant way.
Sure, except for the tiny factoid that they don't and you can only make them do so by importing your own implicit rule based on nothing more than a grammatical stretch while negating the implicit rules created by the express rules on p48.
It's important not to lose sight of the fact that while the rules provide for an IC to join a unit and provide for an IC to leave a unit they do not, at any point, provide for an IC to remain with a unit. Interpreting the Rulebook on a strict basis (which you are claiming to do while simultaneously stuffing your own interpretation into the author's mouth) necessarily implies that an IC joins the unit they're in coherency with every movement phase whether they joined them previously or not. It also provides that an IC can only join one unit per movement phase and that the IC must remain out of coherency of a unit that it does not intend to (or cannot) join.
Your interpretation requires material to be added to the rules. Mine does not.
So, no. I'm right. I've shown the rules and reasoning that mandate my conclusion time and time again. I've shown that all of your objections are flawed and baseless. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but if you're not going to offer anything of substance in the future, I'm just going to stop replying to you. If you ever were contributing anything of value to the discussion, you have clearly given up trying.
I've largely given up trying to offer anything of substance because there is nothing further of substance to say. I have outlined exactly why this doesn't work, given you evidence of the actual practice in 40k and cited precedence for the operation of implicit rules, all of which you've elected to simply ignore because of the implication of one word used on p48.
What is the point in continuing if all I'm going to do is repeat myself? I'm not going to convince you and I've satisfactorily made my case to the others reading this thread. Poking fun at your ridiculous hypocrisy and association with Tynskel is all that's left to do.
So off you pop, my love. You and your little pet can go and play with your nonsense rules and complain that the rest of us don't get it. Meanwhile the rest of us will use the rules that the Rulebook provides.
I'm just not getting how Bean thinks he's getting around the "must obey the usual coherency rules" on page 48. If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B. The only way the IC can move within two inches of a model in unit B in the movement phase would therefore be if the IC left unit A which gives him the ability to move close enough to unit B to join it thus forming unit B+.
It seems pretty clear cut on the rules to me and trying to get around it just seems like trying to take advantage of someone to me.
He's simply ignoring that rule and has been since the second page when it was first brought up.
Old_Paladin
10-19-2011, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure where some people are getting this "you cannot be within 2" of another unit" from.
The rules are that:
Members of the same unit must be within 2" of each other
No unit can be closer then 1" from an enemy unit (except for assaults)
No model may pass through, or occupy, the same space as an other model [there must be a gap at least as wide as a models base for it to pass between other models].
Two seperate units can be close to each other (intermixed, in fact).
As stupid as it sounds there is no outright rule that states "an IC can only be a member of a single unit at any given time." Nor is their any rule that outright states" if an IC wishes to join a new unit, they must leave the old unit."
The only rule is that you "must declear the unit you wish to join;" so you could say "while in unit A, I also wish to join unit B."
________________________
That aside,
It's also important to remember that these are a 'permissive' ruleset. We are only allowed to play by rules that are expressly permitted; we cannot make up additional rules or 'fill in the blanks'.
If the rules don't state "a Character may join more the one unit," then you shouldn't play like that.
Hive Mind
10-19-2011, 09:10 AM
As stupid as it sounds there is no outright rule that states "an IC can only be a member of a single unit at any given time." Nor is their any rule that outright states" if an IC wishes to join a new unit, they must leave the old unit."
The only rule is that you "must declear the unit you wish to join;" so you could say "while in unit A, I also wish to join unit B."
So on the one hand we must stick to the explicit rules but on the other you're also saying that an IC that joins a unit is a permanent addition to that unit until they leave it despite that not being explicit in the rules.
The explicit rules say that an IC joins a unit in the movement phase regardless of whether they had previously joined it. Because of this and the explicit rule that an IC can only join one unit per movement phase an IC cannot be attached to more than one unit. As a corollary of these rules, and as is explicit on p48, an IC that had joined unit A in movement phase 1 and wants to join unit B in movement phase 2 must move out of coherency with unit A and into coherency with unit B since it does not intend to (or cannot) join unit A.
Old_Paladin
10-19-2011, 09:56 AM
Their is no explicit rule that states "an IC cannot be attached to more then one unit."
That's Bean's point.
Also, how do you "not intend to join" a unit you have already joined? How is that even possible?
Unless you're claiming an IC has to join* (and re-join) the same unit each and every movement phase [which also isn't a rule], until it decides to leave.
That's also Bean's point.
If I'm part of unit A, I can move up to unit B (because I do intend to join them); however, I'm going to stay with unit A, because I don't intend to leave them (and am already joined).
Again, I don't think this is how the rules should work. I wouldn't play this way; and wouldn't like an opponent to play this way.
I just understand Bean's point; that the rules are poorly enough worded, that his interpritation isn't an impossiblity.
* please note that the rules also state that once a IC joins a unit, they may not move any further that phase. So if an IC re-joined every turn, the unit would never be allowed to move.
Hive Mind
10-19-2011, 10:06 AM
Their is no explicit rule that states "an IC cannot be attached to more then one unit."
That's Bean's point.
Also, how do you "not intend to join" a unit you have already joined? How is that even possible?
Unless you're claiming an IC has to join* (and re-join) the same unit each and every movement phase [which also isn't a rule], until it decides to leave.
That's also Bean's point.
If I'm part of unit A, I can move up to unit B (because I do intend to join them); however, I'm going to stay with unit A, because I don't intend to leave them (and am already joined).
All dealt with and disproved, where applicable, previously. Do try to keep up.
* please note that the rules also state that once a IC joins a unit, they may not move any further that phase. So if an IC re-joined every turn, the unit would never be allowed to move.
I knew you'd be good for a laugh. Go read it again but this time, think about it.
I'm just not getting how Bean thinks he's getting around the "must obey the usual coherency rules" on page 48. If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B. The only way the IC can move within two inches of a model in unit B in the movement phase would therefore be if the IC left unit A which gives him the ability to move close enough to unit B to join it thus forming unit B+.
It seems pretty clear cut on the rules to me and trying to get around it just seems like trying to take advantage of someone to me.
I think you guys may be suffering from a misunderstanding regarding the content of the "usual coherency rules."
Let me quote them for you:
When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'
That's the coherency rule. It's on page 12.
This rule requires all of the models within a given unit to jointly meet a certain criteria each time the unit moves. This criteria has nothing to do with other units. It doesn't require or prohibit any relationships with other units.
When you write, "If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B," this is completely false. There is no rule to this effect. Neither the coherency rules nor the IC rules prevent unit A+ from moving to within two inches of unit B. That assertion is pure fabrication, with no basis at all in the actual rules. An IC does not have to leave a unit in order to move to within 2" of another unit. Show me a rule that actually says that, or quit asserting it as truth.
It seems pretty clear to me that someone is just making stuff up to prop up an otherwise baseless preconception about what the rules should be.
Wildeybeast
10-19-2011, 10:36 AM
First off, there's no "onus of proof" that arises from undesirable consequences. Even if there were, I've already proved my position.
Second:
No
Yes
Yes
Feel free to continue.
I will indeed, though I probably shouldn't need to.
You admit that coherency rules only apply to models in a single unit, not between units, meaning one unit cannot, by definition, be in coherency with another.
You also admit that an IC is part of unit and must obey the coherency rules, which we have now established only apply to a unit and not across units.
Therefore as you cannot have coherency between units, you cannot be in coherency with two units at once and thus an IC cannot be joined to two units at once. Thank you for helping me to establish that.
The only way I can see for you to get round this is to suggest that your your process is still valid and that by joining an IC to two units, they cease to become seperate units and in fact become one unit, thus not violating the coherency rules. I would hope that you would recognise there is no provision whatsoever in the rules for this, either explict or implicit.
Also, ditto everything hive mind has said.
I see, implicit rules only exist when they support your case. Handy that, isn't it?
Nope, you're still just lying. Your lack of intellectual integrity has gone from disturbing to just disappointing.
Sure, except for the tiny factoid that they don't and you can only make them do so by importing your own implicit rule based on nothing more than a grammatical stretch while negating the implicit rules created by the express rules on p48.
I'm not relying on any implicit rules. I am and always have been relying on nothing more than what is stated explicitly on page 48, that "In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase."
This rule, by itself, taken explicitly, is all I need to prove my point. I need not add anything to the rules, take implication from the rules, or ignore any rules in order for this to be true, as I've shown many times now. Honestly, it's like your'e not even trying--you've realized that you have no actual argument, and your preferred response is to lie about my argument. It's sad, really.
It's important not to lose sight of the fact that while the rules provide for an IC to join a unit and provide for an IC to leave a unit they do not, at any point, provide for an IC to remain with a unit. Interpreting the Rulebook on a strict basis (which you are claiming to do while simultaneously stuffing your own interpretation into the author's mouth) necessarily implies that an IC joins the unit they're in coherency with every movement phase whether they joined them previously or not. It also provides that an IC can only join one unit per movement phase and that the IC must remain out of coherency of a unit that it does not intend to (or cannot) join.
Your interpretation requires material to be added to the rules. Mine does not.
This is a more interesting argument than you've offered before, but still insufficient. The rules don't have to state that an IC remains attached to a unit after it has joined them. This is a necessary consequence of having joined them. Units don't fall apart naturally, and ICs become part of a unit when they join it. They don't leave the unit because of a lack of rules stating that they stay any more than some random bolter marine leaves its unit because of a lack of rules stating that it stays--the rules for units make this clear.
Indeed, the rules spell out the only ways in which an IC can leave a unit, demonstrating that this argument is faulty--though I'll give you credit for trying something new.
I've largely given up trying to offer anything of substance because there is nothing further of substance to say.
I agree.
I have outlined exactly why this doesn't work, given you evidence of the actual practice in 40k and cited precedence for the operation of implicit rules, all of which you've elected to simply ignore because of the implication of one word used on p48.
You have mostly just made up stuff and presented it as rules. Your small smattering of arguments actually based in the rules have been addressed and refuted. You've got nothing. The rules explicitly allow me to do what I'm doing, and your fabrications don't change that.
What is the point in continuing if all I'm going to do is repeat myself? I'm not going to convince you and I've satisfactorily made my case to the others reading this thread. Poking fun at your ridiculous hypocrisy and association with Tynskel is all that's left to do.
So off you pop, my love. You and your little pet can go and play with your nonsense rules and complain that the rest of us don't get it. Meanwhile the rest of us will use the rules that the Rulebook provides.
Your ability to lie to yourself is cute but sad.
He's simply ignoring that rule and has been since the second page when it was first brought up.
No, I didn't ignore that. I addressed it several times and showed that it doesn't constitute an objection to my position. Again, you're just a liar.
Wildeybeast
10-19-2011, 10:40 AM
[QUOTE=Old_Paladin;162184]Their is no explicit rule that states "an IC cannot be attached to more then one unit."
That's Bean's point.
So just to check, am I understanding correctly that you think Bean is wrong?
Old_Paladin
10-19-2011, 10:42 AM
I did, it states that when a character (or unit) ends their movement phase [not the players movement phase] within 2" of each other they become joined [the other member doesn't get to move].
There is also the rule that units with an IC move at the rate of the slowest member.
Seems pretty clear that once an IC joins a unit, they become a single entity. They don't join the same unit every turn; like you suggest.
Old_Paladin
10-19-2011, 10:44 AM
So just to check, am I understanding correctly that you think Bean is wrong?
Yes; mostly
I understand his points. The rules do seem to allow it.
But I think they are just poorly written rules; and the normitive style of play (even if against RAW), is the correct way to play.
I will indeed, though I probably shouldn't need to.
You admit that coherency rules only apply to models in a single unit, not between units, meaning one unit cannot, by definition, be in coherency with another.
Not exactly. The coherency rules apply only to models in a single unit. This means that they only check for coherency one unit at a time--it does not mean that one unit can't contain a model that is also part of another unit. The rules can check the first unit for coherency and then check the second unit for coherency, and find both in coherency even if the IC is joined to each.
You also admit that an IC is part of unit and must obey the coherency rules, which we have now established only apply to a unit and not across units.
Therefore as you cannot have coherency between units, you cannot be in coherency with two units at once and thus an IC cannot be joined to two units at once. Thank you for helping me to establish that.
This conclusion is flawed, for the reasons I note above--but it's good that you're going through this analytically. Thanks for helping me expose and explain the error in your reasoning.
The only way I can see for you to get round this is to suggest that your your process is still valid and that by joining an IC to two units, they cease to become seperate units and in fact become one unit, thus not violating the coherency rules. I would hope that you would recognise there is no provision whatsoever in the rules for this, either explict or implicit.
Also, ditto everything hive mind has said.
There is no explicit provision for that, no--and I don't think they would become a single unit, though I think the rules might force them to all move and shoot together in a manner similar to being a single unit. Certainly, as you note, the coherency rules wouldn't explicitly require the two units to be in coherency with each other (though both would have to include the IC in their coherency chains).
Just to reiterate, then: the coherency rules on page 12 read:
When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'
Reading this rule, it is clear that nothing within it prevents a model from being part of two units. This rule simply expresses how and when to check each unit for coherency. It gives a requirement that must be met jointly by all of the models in each unit--but, a model can easily meet this requirement for one unit when that unit is checked and for anther unit when that unit is checked, even while belonging to both.
Hopefully, this will lay to rest the particular argument you suggest.
Yes; mostly
I understand his points. The rules do seem to allow it.
But I think they are just poorly written rules; and the normitive style of play (even if against RAW), is the correct way to play.
As I think through the ramifications of having a character attached to more than one unit at a time, I agree more and more that this should be house-ruled out.
Wildeybeast
10-19-2011, 11:23 AM
Not exactly. The coherency rules apply only to models in a single unit. This means that they only check for coherency one unit at a time--it does not mean that one unit can't contain a model that is also part of another unit. The rules can check the first unit for coherency and then check the second unit for coherency, and find both in coherency even if the IC is joined to each.
This conclusion is flawed, for the reasons I note above--but it's good that you're going through this analytically. Thanks for helping me expose and explain the error in your reasoning.
There is no explicit provision for that, no--and I don't think they would become a single unit, though I think the rules might force them to all move and shoot together in a manner similar to being a single unit. Certainly, as you note, the coherency rules wouldn't explicitly require the two units to be in coherency with each other (though both would have to include the IC in their coherency chains).
Just to reiterate, then: the coherency rules on page 12 read:
When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'
Reading this rule, it is clear that nothing within it prevents a model from being part of two units. This rule simply expresses how and when to check each unit for coherency. It gives a requirement that must be met jointly by all of the models in each unit--but, a model can easily meet this requirement for one unit when that unit is checked and for anther unit when that unit is checked, even while belonging to both.
Hopefully, this will lay to rest the particular argument you suggest.
Firstly you don't need to need to keep quoting the coherency rules to me when I first quoted it to you several pages ago, I am well aware of what it says. Secondly, you argument might be more persuasive if you tried to not to come across like a patronising arse who is explaining things to a child.
Thirdly, to deal with your sepcific points. No, you do not check each unit when it has finished moving to ensure it is in coherency. Maintaining coherency is part of that move. You don't move a unit, then check to see if it is in coherency and then go 'oh bugger it's not I better move it again/sort it out next turn'. You have to move in such a way that when you have moved every model, they have formed the 'coherency chain'. Any other move is an illegal move. This means the process of maintaing coherency is done throughout the movement, it is not as you suggest some subphase done at the end of movement. As part of unit A and B he has to constantly be in coherency with both, meaning unit A & B have to constantly be in coherency with each other which you admit is not possible.
Fourthly even it was as you suggest you have a problem. Unit A and B share an IC, you move unit A and check for cohernecy. Everything is fine. Then you go to move unit B but the movement rules p11 state "once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit". As Unit A has finished moving and the IC is part of unit A, he can't move again. But as he is also part of unit B, unit B has also moved and thus can't move again. Another ridiculous situation brought about by your reading of the rules.
Firstly you don't need to need to keep quoting the coherency rules to me when I first quoted it to you several pages ago, I am well aware of what it says. Secondly, you argument might be more persuasive if you tried to not to come across like a patronising arse who is explaining things to a child.
Firstly, apparently I do need to keep quoting them as, below, you demonstrate shocking ignorance as to its contents.
Second, you've might be right, but I kind of doubt it. You've made your irrational attachment to your preconception quite clear. I don't think that my tone is going to have any impact on your willingness to alter that preconception. Anyway, if I am explaining things to you as I would a child, it is only because explaining them as I would to an adult has failed. You simply haven't displayed that level of intellectual competence.
Thirdly, to deal with your sepcific points. No, you do not check each unit when it has finished moving to ensure it is in coherency. Maintaining coherency is part of that move. You don't move a unit, then check to see if it is in coherency and then go 'oh bugger it's not I better move it again/sort it out next turn'. You have to move in such a way that when you have moved every model, they have formed the 'coherency chain'. Any other move is an illegal move. This means the process of maintaing coherency is done throughout the movement, it is not as you suggest some subphase done at the end of movement. As part of unit A and B he has to constantly be in coherency with both, meaning unit A & B have to constantly be in coherency with each other which you admit is not possible.
This is specifically contradicted by the rules. The rule says, again, "once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must..."
That's it. That's the only requirement for coherency--that the models meet a certain requirement once the unit has finished moving. That is the only time you check for coherency. You don't check for coherency while moving (though I suppose you could just to make sure you meet the requirement at the end). Maintaining coherency is part of the move, but only checked at the end. The process of maintaining coherency is done throughout the movement, but it is only checked at the end--like I said.
Anyway, the real point of this is the last sentence, which of course is completely divorced from and unsupported by the rest of it. You claim again,
"As part of unit A and B he has to constantly be in coherency with both, meaning unit A & B have to constantly be in coherency with each other which you admit is not possible."
But, of course, this isn't stated in the rules at all. The IC doesn't have to be in coherency with both A and B at all times--the rules, in fact, make it clear that a unit only has to be in coherency at the end of its movement.
Again, you are just making stuff up--stuff that is explicitly contrary to what the rules actually say.
Fourthly even it was as you suggest you have a problem. Unit A and B share an IC, you move unit A and check for cohernecy. Everything is fine. Then you go to move unit B but the movement rules p11 state "once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit". As Unit A has finished moving and the IC is part of unit A, he can't move again. But as he is also part of unit B, unit B has also moved and thus can't move again. Another ridiculous situation brought about by your reading of the rules.
Agreed. It is a ridiculous consequence. Again, though, undesirable consequences of the rules don't change the nature of the rules. At best, they suggest potential house rules.
If your argument is that people should implement a house rule against this practice, that's fine--you'd get no argument from me.
But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that the rules actually say something other than what they say because you don't like what they say. You've made this clear, time and time again. I can't even imagine what it must be like to live in a mind that honestly believes, as you seem to, that reality itself conforms to your whims. The concept is mind-boggling.
edit:
here's a hypothetical situation that illustrates your error:
You have a unit of five tactical marines, arranged in line--like so:
m m m m m
Units are moved a model at a time--that is, you pick up one model and move it, then pick up the next model and move it. If you were correct, and units had to maintain coherency at all times, the first marine in this unit that moves would have to maintain coherency with unmoved marines. It would effectively be restricted to moving no further than (in a rough approximation of scale) like so:
m
- m m m m
After moving all of them, you could, if you were careful, be able to end up with a formation looking something like:
- - - - m
- - - m -
- - m - -
- m - - -
m - - - -
What you could never end up with, though, is something that looks like this:
m m m m m
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
(original line of ms)
You couldn't move each marine forward six inches to form a line parallel to your original line but six inches away from where it started. Moving each marine would break the unit's coherency, and if units had to maintain coherency at all times, as you claim, such a movement would subsequently be impossible.
But, of course,the rules are quite clear in stating that they don't. Units only have to be in coherency at the ends of their movements. This is what the rule says, and common practice in this area is entirely consistent with them.
MaxKool
10-19-2011, 11:56 AM
Ok I just read all of this and I have to say this is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in 20 years of tabletop gaming.
I can pull any rule books from numerous games, pick and choose some rules and do things that are arnt directly forbidden by direct language. GW has on numerous occasions said that 40k is a permisive ruleset, do u have any idea what this means? U are ignoring the fact that nowhere are their rules in the brb covering what can happen when an IC is attached to multiple squads. WAnna know why.... Nowhere in the rules does it say u can. All u are doing is twisting rules around to prove that the rulebook dosnt say you can't do it so u must be able to. It even says that when end within 2 inches of a unit u need to say what UNIT (notice how it says unit and not units) u wish to attach it to.
Are u really trying to say that because it dosnt say u have left the original unit that u are now attached to two units?
Seriously ... after reading all this it is clear u will do what u want no matter what. In all this time of 40k do u think u are the 1st person to wonder this? Ever wonder why it's not faqd... It's because it's stupid plain and simple and if I EVER played someone trying to do this I would just say ok u win and go find a non douchebag to play.
I would also like to know where it says I can intermix my separate units together, this again is not in the spirit of the game as it does nothing but confuse your opponent... Jesus guys, I'm glad I play with people who dont go out of their way to break the game and take all the fun out of it.
Again, thanks for making my day... This is some funny stuff to read... Sad guys really sad...
Ok I went and read some more...
What about this... If u are joined to two units like u seem to think u can. What happens when I assault one of the units and the resulting move to get the IC in base contact as demanded by the rules ( if possible) make it leave coherency with one of the units. As we are not in the movement phase any more explain to me what happens... Do u not move the IC? This breaks a rule, does he leave unit a to go figh with unit b? Again breaking a rule as it's not the movement phase and that's the ONLY time he can join or be attached to a unit... So tell me what happens.
The fact that Doug. What u are claiming is possible forces you to break or bend other rules defies the definition of the permissive ruleset..... Ergo u can do said action as it basically "blue screens" the game
....
Wildeybeast
10-19-2011, 11:59 AM
Lol, I'm with Hivemind on this one, your points have actually become so ludicrous, not to mention personally insulting, that they are laughable.
Are you actually telling me that I can move my models however I want, then perform your coherency check? Then what happens when I find that they aren't in coherency? I should just ignore it? Go back and do it again? Make a house rule that says next time I do move I have to make sure I move in such a way as to maintain coherency when the rules already make this clear?
I'm not going to trouble you any further on this, but if you don't mind I would you like to answer me one last question, which I hope will let other make up their own minds on who is in the right here. A simple yes or no will suffice here.
Has it never, not even once, occured to you that all these "undesirable consequences" (or monumentally stupid game breaking situations as I like to call them) you keep finding and having to house rule are not in fact flaws in the game rules but suggestions that you might be misinterpreting them ever so slightly?
Lol, I'm with Hivemind on this one, your points have actually become so ludicrous, not to mention personally insulting, that they are laughable.
Are you actually telling me that I can move my models however I want, then perform your coherency check? Then what happens when I find that they aren't in coherency? I should just ignore it? Go back and do it again? Make a house rule that says next time I do move I have to make sure I move in such a way as to maintain coherency when the rules already make this clear?
You should go back and do it again. The rules explicitly give you permission to redo a unit's movement if you don't like it. Once you have moved a unit, you should check to make sure it meets the coherency requirements. If it does not, you should redo some or all of that unit's movement so that it does meet the coherency requirement. This is entirely consistent with the rules.
I'm not going to trouble you any further on this, but if you don't mind I would you like to answer me one last question, which I hope will let other make up their own minds on who is in the right here. A simple yes or no will suffice here.
Has it never, not even once, occured to you that all these "undesirable consequences" (or monumentally stupid game breaking situations as I like to call them) you keep finding and having to house rule are not in fact flaws in the game rules but suggestions that you might be misinterpreting them ever so slightly?
Of course it has. You've suggested that possibility often enough.
The fact remains, though, that I am not misinterpreting the rules. They say exactly what I suggest they say, monumentally stupid game breaking situations and all.
edit:
I like how you continue to argue against my position based on the fact that it creates consequences which are not consistent with the way the game is actually played, yet when I point out that your position does the same, you ignore it.
At least you're open about being utterly hypocritical.
Ok I just read all of this and I have to say this is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in 20 years of tabletop gaming.
I can pull any rule books from numerous games, pick and choose some rules and do things that are arnt directly forbidden by direct language. GW has on numerous occasions said that 40k is a permisive ruleset, do u have any idea what this means? U are ignoring the fact that nowhere are their rules in the brb covering what can happen when an IC is attached to multiple squads. WAnna know why.... Nowhere in the rules does it say u can. All u are doing is twisting rules around to prove that the rulebook dosnt say you can't do it so u must be able to. It even says that when end within 2 inches of a unit u need to say what UNIT (notice how it says unit and not units) u wish to attach it to.
I've addressed this utterly inaccurate representation of my position. Apparently, you haven't been reading very carefully.
Tell me: can an IC join a unit when it is within 12" of an enemy unit?
Are u really trying to say that because it dosnt say u have left the original unit that u are now attached to two units?
Yes, because that is the only logical conclusion. If the rules don't say you leave the original unit and they do say you join a new unit, you are now joined to both. Thank you for spelling out my position in such a plain and straightforward manner. I trust you now realize that I am right.
Seriously ... after reading all this it is clear u will do what u want no matter what. In all this time of 40k do u think u are the 1st person to wonder this? Ever wonder why it's not faqd... It's because it's stupid plain and simple and if I EVER played someone trying to do this I would just say ok u win and go find a non douchebag to play.
I would also like to know where it says I can intermix my separate units together, this again is not in the spirit of the game as it does nothing but confuse your opponent... Jesus guys, I'm glad I play with people who dont go out of their way to break the game and take all the fun out of it.
Again, thanks for making my day... This is some funny stuff to read... Sad guys really sad...
Ok I went and read some more...
What about this... If u are joined to two units like u seem to think u can. What happens when I assault one of the units and the resulting move to get the IC in base contact as demanded by the rules ( if possible) make it leave coherency with one of the units. As we are not in the movement phase any more explain to me what happens... Do u not move the IC? This breaks a rule, does he leave unit a to go figh with unit b? Again breaking a rule as it's not the movement phase and that's the ONLY time he can join or be attached to a unit... So tell me what happens.
The fact that Doug. What u are claiming is possible forces you to break or bend other rules defies the definition of the permissive ruleset..... Ergo u can do said action as it basically "blue screens" the game
....
I feel the same way about your post that you do about mine. The difference, really, is that your post is utterly devoid of intelligent analysis, argument, or reasoning, while my posts are based firmly on logic and the rules.
You're really more towards the sad end of the spectrum than the amusing end.
Try actually reading the rules (and respond to my question above) and maybe you'll be able to pull yourself out of this pit of ignorance in which you are trapped.
MaxKool
10-19-2011, 12:19 PM
Come on bean, answer why if I play your way I will end up breaking other rules left and right. Explain about the assault question. What should I do when this inevitably comes up.... I really don't want to have to tell my nice opponent to come read your 12pages of rules bending to justify this Amazing new tactic that only u have noticed after 20years of 40k....
Actualy don't bother, this kind of rules lawyering is exactly what sucks the fun out of this game.
I don't need to quote rules over and over. Unlike u I actualy know how to Play and would never even think of pulling this crap on somone.
Nothing you have said convinces me at all. U point out why u can do it without saying anything about all the examples in the brb stating why u shouldn't. The single line about ICs having to choose what UNIT they are a part of is good enuf for 99% of players to understand that u can only be joined to one unit. U ignore this and go out of your way to justify something.
I'm done with this, I've had enuf humor for one day.. This kind of playing makes me sick.
Wildeybeast
10-19-2011, 12:34 PM
You should go back and do it again. The rules explicitly give you permission to redo a unit's movement if you don't like it. Once you have moved a unit, you should check to make sure it meets the coherency requirements. If it does not, you should redo some or all of that unit's movement so that it does meet the coherency requirement. This is entirely consistent with the rules.
Of course it has. You've suggested that possibility often enough.
The fact remains, though, that I am not misinterpreting the rules. They say exactly what I suggest they say, monumentally stupid game breaking situations and all.
edit:
I like how you continue to argue against my position based on the fact that it creates consequences which are not consistent with the way the game is actually played, yet when I point out that your position does the same, you ignore it.
At least you're open about being utterly hypocritical.
Hah, thanks Bean you've cleared that right up. So according to you I check that my unit is in coherency after I finish moving it, then if its not I go back and move it again. But the movement rules I just quoted say you cannot move again after having finished moving a unit. Guess i better house rule that one as well. Of course if the coherency check were an ongoing part moving, then you wouldn't be breaking the movement rules, but that is just poor game design and not you getting things wrong, yeah? :D
MaxKool, you seem to want to take him to task on this, so I'm passing the baton to you, but this guys has some ... interesting... ideas about how to play, so good luck with this.
Come on bean, answer why if I play your way I will end up breaking other rules left and right.
Because GW is terrible at writing rules.
Explain about the assault question. What should I do when this inevitably comes up.... I really don't want to have to tell my nice opponent to come read your 12pages of rules bending to justify this Amazing new tactic that only u have noticed after 20years of 40k....
Good question--I'd be inclined to agree that, no matter how you cut it, this issue demands a house rule.
Actualy don't bother, this kind of rules lawyering is exactly what sucks the fun out of this game.
I don't need to quote rules over and over. Unlike u I actualy know how to Play and would never even think of pulling this crap on somone.
You really haven't read my posts at all, have you?
Nothing you have said convinces me at all. U point out why u can do it without saying anything about all the examples in the brb stating why u shouldn't. The single line about ICs having to choose what UNIT they are a part of is good enuf for 99% of players to understand that u can only be joined to one unit. U ignore this and go out of your way to justify something.
I'm done with this, I've had enuf humor for one day.. This kind of playing makes me sick.
The only thing making you sick, here, is your imagination. You have imagined my position to be something entirely different from what it is--even though I have explicitly stated that it is not what you represent it as being.
You can feel disgusted all you want, but you only have your own failure to blame for that. What bothers you, here, is entirely your own creation. It has nothing to do with me.
Also, I like how you completely avoided answering the question.
Go on--if you really think you know how to play the game let's hear it: can an IC join a unit while it is within 12" of an enemy unit?
Hah, thanks Bean you've cleared that right up. So according to you I check that my unit is in coherency after I finish moving it, then if its not I go back and move it again. But the movement rules I just quoted say you cannot move again after having finished moving a unit. Guess i better house rule that one as well. Of course if the coherency check were an ongoing part moving, then you wouldn't be breaking the movement rules, but that is just poor game design and not you getting things wrong, yeah? :D
I don't see that you've quoted any rules that say that at all. Check--are you just making stuff up again? If so, don't bother continuing down this line of reasoning. If there is such a rule, feel free to quote it.
Otherwise, I'll presume you've admitted that I'm right on this one.
The coherency check is not done while moving. Whatever the consequences of this might be, there is no rational way to deny what the rule on page 12 clearly states--which is that the check is done once the unit has finished moving and at no other time.
Also, are you going to address how your assertion that units must maintain coherency "at all times" prevents you from doing things that are common practice? After all, you seem to think that's a worthwhile metric for rules interpretations--got anything by which you intend to defend your blatant hypocrisy?
MaxKool, you seem to want to take him to task on this, so I'm passing the baton to you, but this guys has some ... interesting... ideas about how to play, so good luck with this.
Yes, shocking that I might actually want to play by the rules. Of course, let's just ignore the fact that I've already stated that, in this case, I don't think I do. I'd say that your blatant dishonesty here is shocking, but, at this point, I'm not really surprised. You've demonstrated a consistent and severe lack of honesty throughout this entire proceeding. I'm glad I don't have to play against people like you--I just don't like dealing with liars.
MaxKool
10-19-2011, 03:30 PM
Ok last post cause it dosnt matter what we say bean wants to play how he views the rules.
Bean, u answered my question with another question completely ignoring my question. So before u jump ahead how about answering it. What I want to know is why then did gw write the info about ics joining a UNIT within 2" ?
UNIT not units or may join any units within 2" it clearly says the IC can join a unit. No other qualifiers period. They are stupid, gw is aware that models and units may fall into both being close together.. So they say the IC can join a unit. What u wAnt just isn't in that section man. U are pulling coherency rules and applying them to the joining independent character rules and interpreting them the way u want. U are bang on with the coherency rules tho, it dOes say that after moves are complete then u check for coherency. But because I don't have my brb here at work Ive sat out of that part of the discussion as I don't have the facts handy.
But the IC being attached to two units is flat out wrong. The section is perfectly clear in how it works, maybe not to u but that is what this forum for.
Now maybe u want to answer why unare ignoring the wording in that section. The. We can mOve on to the next question. But it's all there in the brb. U can't take the unit coherency rules and use them to change the wording " joins a UNIT to can join another unit but stays attached to the previous one.
Ok last post cause it dosnt matter what we say bean wants to play how he views the rules.
Actually I don't. You might want to work on that reading thing--it can help you look less like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bean, u answered my question with another question completely ignoring my question. So before u jump ahead how about answering it. What I want to know is why then did gw write the info about ics joining a UNIT within 2" ?
Because an IC can only join one unit at a time. Note the distinction between the active verb join and the passive verb be joined. An IC can only join one unit in a given turn. However, since it can do this will already joined to another unit, it can potentially be joined to more than one unit at a time.
The singular "unit" in the rules on page 48 merely reinforce that an IC can't join two new units during the same turn.
UNIT not units or may join any units within 2" it clearly says the IC can join a unit. No other qualifiers period. They are stupid, gw is aware that models and units may fall into both being close together.. So they say the IC can join a unit. What u wAnt just isn't in that section man. U are pulling coherency rules and applying them to the joining independent character rules and interpreting them the way u want.
I'm actually not utilizing the coherency rules in my argument at all. As far as I'm concerned (and I've iterated this several times now) the coherency rules are irrelevant to this discussion.
U are bang on with the coherency rules tho, it dOes say that after moves are complete then u check for coherency. But because I don't have my brb here at work Ive sat out of that part of the discussion as I don't have the facts handy.
Glad we agree on that.
But the IC being attached to two units is flat out wrong. The section is perfectly clear in how it works, maybe not to u but that is what this forum for.
I don't see that the rules clearly state anything of the sort. As I've noted, the use of the singular "unit" does not support the interpretation you're suggesting.
Now maybe u want to answer why unare ignoring the wording in that section. The. We can mOve on to the next question. But it's all there in the brb. U can't take the unit coherency rules and use them to change the wording " joins a UNIT to can join another unit but stays attached to the previous one.
I'm not ignoring the wording in that section. I have addressed it several times. The use of the singular unit does have an effect (one that is redundant with other portions of the same rule) on how the rule works, but it does not have the effect you suggest.
MaxKool
10-19-2011, 04:25 PM
Dude I give up you are right. I guess everyone has been playing wrong all these years and it tool your brilliant intellect to show us the light.
U are doing the same thing as we are, u are using your own PErsonal interpretation that joining a unit somehow leaves me attached to the previous one still. Nothing in the rules says they do or don't so stop acting all high and mighty. Your argument is as weak as Ours, the difference is ours dosnt beak the game. So what is it then, the personal interpretation that breaks the game or the one that has been used Pretty much by everyone....
I didn't want to sink to your level and start insulting people's intellect like u did but forget it. U bean are a moron and I will be promptly adding u to my ignore list. The info u shared here is a bunch of bs rules layering crap. Following the age old cheaters Mantra of "it dosnt say I can't so I'm gonna" you have come off like a complete know it all prick trying to convince us to break the game. Thanks for the humor if nothing else, this will be one to talk about at our lgs lol....
Speaking of children's intellect my daughter even understands that just because daddy dosnt say she can't draw on the walls dosnt mean she can...... U can't even grasp this all the while calling others child like... Rich man...
Tynskel
10-19-2011, 08:18 PM
Dude I give up you are right. I guess everyone has been playing wrong all these years and it tool your brilliant intellect to show us the light.
U are doing the same thing as we are, u are using your own PErsonal interpretation that joining a unit somehow leaves me attached to the previous one still. Nothing in the rules says they do or don't so stop acting all high and mighty. Your argument is as weak as Ours, the difference is ours dosnt beak the game. So what is it then, the personal interpretation that breaks the game or the one that has been used Pretty much by everyone....
I didn't want to sink to your level and start insulting people's intellect like u did but forget it. U bean are a moron and I will be promptly adding u to my ignore list. The info u shared here is a bunch of bs rules layering crap. Following the age old cheaters Mantra of "it dosnt say I can't so I'm gonna" you have come off like a complete know it all prick trying to convince us to break the game. Thanks for the humor if nothing else, this will be one to talk about at our lgs lol....
Speaking of children's intellect my daughter even understands that just because daddy dosnt say she can't draw on the walls dosnt mean she can...... U can't even grasp this all the while calling others child like... Rich man...
What you are stating here is the difference between a rule and a norm. A norm has consequences: if your daughter writes on the wall, even though you didn't say she couldn't, there will still be a punishment.
What bean is pointing out is that the rules are written such that you can attach a character to multiple units, however the norm is such that nobody will want to play with you. So, even though you 'can' do something, does not mean that there are no consequences for such action.
Asimodeus
10-19-2011, 08:22 PM
@MaxKool
Dude i might take you more seriously if you learned english. "You have a daughter? I worry for her education, as her father has all the typing ability of a drunk chimp."
1. it's YOU not U "if you cannot be bothered to type full words DON'T POST!"
2. CAPITALS, these go at the beginning of sentences, or can be used to emphasise a point.
"nOt rAndOmLy iN the mIdDle oF woRDs as iT maKes YOU loOk liKE a morOn see?"
SeattleDV8
10-19-2011, 08:29 PM
What Bean is pointing to is an exersize in bad logic and poor reading.
If an IC ends his movement within 2" of two or more units he 'must choose" which unit he wishs to join.
It doesn't matter if he is already joined to a unit because it is also within 2" of the IC.
It therefore becomes one of the units he must choose to join.
The IC rules state that the IC joins the unit he chooses.
Nowhere in the rules are we allowed to join an IC to more than the single unit he chooses at the end of movement.
It is not a legal loophole, it is a misreadimg of the rules.
You do not have permission, you may not do it, it is really that simple.
Kushial
10-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Actually, I think I finally found what might put this to bed, and it was on the next page of the rules.
On page 49 in the IC and Shooting part, it says that IC "that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit" and thus the IC loses his IC status until he chooses to leave the unit. To be able to join a unit, he'd have to not be in a unit to start with since only an IC can join a unit and units are not allowed to join other units. So since it gives a clear example of an IC being considered part of the unit, it loses part of it's abilities. This also falls in with the precedent of losing other special rules such as infiltrate.
So to be able to join a unit, the IC must be in his IC state not part of a unit. Which means to attach him to unit B, he has to first leave unit A to be able to join ANY other unit.
Pikante
10-19-2011, 09:43 PM
What Bean is pointing to is an exersize in bad logic and poor reading.
If an IC ends his movement within 2" of two or more units he 'must choose" which unit he wishs to join.
It doesn't matter if he is already joined to a unit because it is also within 2" of the IC.
It therefore becomes one of the units he must choose to join.
The IC rules state that the IC joins the unit he chooses.
Nowhere in the rules are we allowed to join an IC to more than the single unit he chooses at the end of movement.
It is not a legal loophole, it is a misreadimg of the rules.
You do not have permission, you may not do it, it is really that simple.
Also if this was allowed that would mean you could then shoot at both units as a single unit since they are now joined. I have no idea why you would ever desire that, especially with the current meta. Would be funny as all heck to watch though.
IC player: Hehehe look at my double unit all the way!
Other player: Look at 3 strong tank squad of leman russes all the way!
DarkLink
10-19-2011, 10:28 PM
Your argument is as weak as Ours, the difference is ours dosnt beak the game. So what is it then, the personal interpretation that breaks the game or the one that has been used Pretty much by everyone....
Popular opinion or functionality have no direct relation to the reality of the rules. Bean is taking a set of rules to a logical yet nonsensical conclusion precisely to demonstrate this point.
I didn't want to sink to your level and start insulting people's intellect like u did but forget it. U bean are a moron and I will be promptly adding u to my ignore list. The info u shared here is a bunch of bs rules layering crap. Following the age old cheaters Mantra of "it dosnt say I can't so I'm gonna" you have come off like a complete know it all prick trying to convince us to break the game. Thanks for the humor if nothing else, this will be one to talk about at our lgs lol....
Speaking of children's intellect my daughter even understands that just because daddy dosnt say she can't draw on the walls dosnt mean she can...... U can't even grasp this all the while calling others child like... Rich man...
BoLS COMMENTING RULES
5) Do not use racist slurs, prejudiced comments, profanity, or derogatory statements. Evading the language filter by using punctuation marks or purposefully misspelling words is considered an offense.
6) Do not initiate arguments of a personal nature. Be courteous to other users, even if you disagree with someone or believe that they are ill-informed. Refrain from flaming posts or comments. You may argue and debate, but do not make any attacks of a personal nature. We strive to make BoLS a place for REASONED discussion amongs fans of the Games Workshop and tabletop wargaming universe.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 01:51 AM
Bean is taking a set of rules to a logical yet nonsensical conclusion precisely to demonstrate this point.
There is no logic in claiming to be doing exactly what the rules say when you have to make a huge leap of faith to connect rule one and rule two.
As I said before, Bean's interpretation requires material to be added to the rules. My 'interpretation' does not. Bean's interpretation has no supporting consistent practise in 40k's literature, mine does. Bean's interpretation is self-contradictory, mine is not. Bean's interpretation leads to absurd results, mine does not.
The only logical conclusion is that Bean's conclusion is neither correct nor logical. The rules are not badly written, people's reading and comprehension skills are bad and no-one apparently studies formal logic anymore. The rules are perfectly clear in every scenario.
But then, there's probably no point in arguing logic with a person who moans about a 'stupid' and 'douchey' 'counter-culture' that tells people how to play while failing to realise that the only person telling others how to play is actually them, is there?
What Bean is pointing to is an exersize in bad logic and poor reading.
If an IC ends his movement within 2" of two or more units he 'must choose" which unit he wishs to join.
It doesn't matter if he is already joined to a unit because it is also within 2" of the IC.
It therefore becomes one of the units he must choose to join.
The IC rules state that the IC joins the unit he chooses.
Nowhere in the rules are we allowed to join an IC to more than the single unit he chooses at the end of movement.
It is not a legal loophole, it is a misreadimg of the rules.
You do not have permission, you may not do it, it is really that simple.
I disagree, and I've actually addressed this before. There is a difference between joining and being joined. One is active, the other is passive.
It is true that if an IC ends its movement within 2" of more than one unit, he can only join one. But that join is active--it doesn't restrict him from being joined to more than one unit. It only restricts the number of units he can attach himself to in a turn, not the number of units he can remain attached to during a turn.
I'll presume that your last sentence is not the assertion that the rulebook must include, specifically, a rule to the effect of, "an IC may join a unit while attached to another unit" in order for it to be legal. I believe that you are smarter than to offer that argument.
If you are offering that argument, I'll reiterate the obvious flaw within it:
If you demand that sort of specific allowance for this situation, consistency demands that that you demand it for every other situation. There's no rule, for instance, that allows ICs to join units while being Warbosses, for instance. Or while being Farseers. Or while being within 12" of an enemy unit. Or while being more than 12" from an enemy unit. If we were to require explicit permission for every possible set of circumstances an IC might find itself in, ICs would never be able to join units at all, as no such explicit permissions exist. However, the rules don't work that way: instead they give all ICs that meet a fairly minimal set of requirements the ability to join units--regardless of their other circumstances (and barring a small list of banned circumstances which fails to include being a Warboss, being a Farseer, or being attached to another unit). Thus, Warbosses, Farseers, and ICs attached to other units may join units.
There is no logic in claiming to be doing exactly what the rules say when you have to make a huge leap of faith to connect rule one and rule two.
As I said before, Bean's interpretation requires material to be added to the rules. My 'interpretation' does not. Bean's interpretation has no supporting consistent practise in 40k's literature, mine does. Bean's interpretation is self-contradictory, mine is not. Bean's interpretation leads to absurd results, mine does not.
The only logical conclusion is that Bean's conclusion is neither correct nor logical. The rules are not badly written, people's reading and comprehension skills are bad and no-one apparently studies formal logic anymore. The rules are perfectly clear in every scenario.
But then, there's probably no point in arguing logic with a person who moans about a 'stupid' and 'douchey' 'counter-culture' that tells people how to play while failing to realise that the only person telling others how to play is actually them, is there?
I'm not connecting two rules. My entire argument is based on exactly one rule. That rule in the absence of others that specifically disallow what I suggest is sufficient. I require no additional material and have included none into any of my arguments.
And, of course, you've offered interpretations in your arguments that do produce absurd results. I've already showed how your interpretation of the coherency rules--that units must maintain coherency at all times--produces absurd results that are not consistent with the way the game is actually played. I've showed that your argument from a permissive standpoint--that each specific situation in which an IC might find itself must be granted an explicit waiver by the rules--produces absurd results that are not consistent with the way the game is actually played.
You can't just lie about what's been said. There's a record of it that people can easily go back and check.
Your representation of my argument is false.
Your representation of your argument is false.
It seems that you have little to offer, in fact, beyond the produce of your imagination, which no-one should find convincing.
Just for the sake of clarity, this is my argument--in its entirety:
1.) The rules on page 48 state: "In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."
2.) An independent character can move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase while already attached to the unit.
3.) There is no rule which prevents a character from joining a unit while already joined to a unit.
4.) There is no rule which forces a character to leave a unit when joining another unit.
5.) Thus an independent character can potentially be joined to more than one unit.
As you can see: I use only one rule. I do not "leap" or draw tenuous connections between separate rules. I do not add to my argument any content that isn't in the rules.
So, again, your characterization of my argument is blatantly false, and you have been exposed to it enough by now to know that. Please refrain from misrepresenting it in the future.
Also if this was allowed that would mean you could then shoot at both units as a single unit since they are now joined. I have no idea why you would ever desire that, especially with the current meta. Would be funny as all heck to watch though.
IC player: Hehehe look at my double unit all the way!
Other player: Look at 3 strong tank squad of leman russes all the way!
I'm generally inclined to agree, at this point. The results are undesirable. It's probably better to house rule this out.
At this point, I'm basically only concerned with the people who can't separate what they want the rules to be from what the rules actually are and the people who are determined to misrepresent what I've so far written.
I'm not even sure the rules do support the conclusion that they would all act as one unit for the purposes of shooting. They might--it honestly just doesn't seem like the rules give any clear guidance for that situation at all, which seems like a good reason not to do it, even though it is legal.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 04:07 AM
You have an interesting debating style Bean. I personally have found that the simple repetition of erroneous statements has never rendered them as any more than erroneous statements, but whatever you want to run with is fine I guess.
When you can show me a rule that says that an IC remains with a unit it has joined until it leaves the unit I'll attach some credence to your arguments. While you continue to argue that the actual rules are 'implicit' rules and deny that your stretched interpretation of a single word on p48 is an implicit rule I'll continue to treat them with the scorn and contempt that they deserve.
SeattleDV8
10-20-2011, 04:48 AM
I disagree, and I've actually addressed this before. There is a difference between joining and being joined. One is active, the other is passive.
It is true that if an IC ends its movement within 2" of more than one unit, he can only join one. But that join is active--it doesn't restrict him from being joined to more than one unit. It only restricts the number of units he can attach himself to in a turn, not the number of units he can remain attached to during a turn.
I'll presume that your last sentence is not the assertion that the rulebook must include, specifically, a rule to the effect of, "an IC may join a unit while attached to another unit" in order for it to be legal. I believe that you are smarter than to offer that argument.
If you are offering that argument, I'll reiterate the obvious flaw within it:
If you demand that sort of specific allowance for this situation, consistency demands that that you demand it for every other situation. There's no rule, for instance, that allows ICs to join units while being Warbosses, for instance. Or while being Farseers. Or while being within 12" of an enemy unit. Or while being more than 12" from an enemy unit. If we were to require explicit permission for every possible set of circumstances an IC might find itself in, ICs would never be able to join units at all, as no such explicit permissions exist. However, the rules don't work that way: instead they give all ICs that meet a fairly minimal set of requirements the ability to join units--regardless of their other circumstances (and barring a small list of banned circumstances which fails to include being a Warboss, being a Farseer, or being attached to another unit). Thus, Warbosses, Farseers, and ICs attached to other units may join units.
Strawnman, and not a very good one.
All of the examples are 'IC's', I can clearly show you where they are permitted to join a unit.
We don't need a list of what we can't do (although it is helpful in some cases)
The rules for 40K tells us what we can do, they give us permission to do certain things.
This is still lacking in your look at the IC rules.
There is no permission for your easter egg.
An IC within 2" of one or more units 'must choose' which single unit he is joined to.
You have an interesting debating style Bean. I personally have found that the simple repetition of erroneous statements has never rendered them as any more than erroneous statements, but whatever you want to run with is fine I guess.
When you can show me a rule that says that an IC remains with a unit it has joined until it leaves the unit I'll attach some credence to your arguments. While you continue to argue that the actual rules are 'implicit' rules and deny that your stretched interpretation of a single word on p48 is an implicit rule I'll continue to treat them with the scorn and contempt that they deserve.
Really? That's your argument? That ICs don't remain with units until they leave?
That is so obviously internally inconsistent that I don't even really feel compelled to respond to it. Just reiterating it is sufficient to show its flaw.
Your claim is that ICs don't remain with units until they leave.
Soak that up, folks--and think twice about giving any credence to this guy's rational faculties.
If this is really the best you've got, I rest my case. You have yet to point out even a single legitimate flaw in my logic or premises.
Strawnman, and not a very good one.
All of the examples are 'IC's', I can clearly show you where they are permitted to join a unit.
We don't need a list of what we can't do (although it is helpful in some cases)
The IC attached to a unit is also an IC. I can clearly show you where it is permitted to join a unit.
The rules for 40K tells us what we can do, they give us permission to do certain things.
This is still lacking in your look at the IC rules.
There is no permission for your easter egg.
The rule that gives an IC that is attached to a unit permission to join another one is the same rule that gives a farseer or an IC within 12" of an enemy unit permission to join a unit. There is permission for my "easter egg." You rely upon it yourself to join ICs in all sorts of other situations.
My argument was obviously not a straw-man--it points out a marked inconsistency in your approach to the rules to which you, even though its inherent fallacy should now be obvious to everyone, seem determined to adhere..
An IC within 2" of one or more units 'must choose' which single unit he is joined to.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual rule that should be obvious to anyone who bothers to read it.
You do not have to choose which single unit he is joined to. You have to choose which single unit he joins. I've already pointed this out, and you know enough to go look at the actual wording of the rule before you make this sort of assertion. You're not even trying to offer a legitimate argument at this point, you're just lying about the content of the rules and hoping others will be so lazy that they won't catch your prevarication.
Or are you really so lacking in basic English literacy that you believe "join" is the equivalent of "is joined to?"
lattd
10-20-2011, 06:38 AM
Why do people have to rule lawyer simple rules? Is common sense a rare gift to the few British people that have a brain?. Its simple you can have multiple IC's in a unit but not 1 IC in multiple units.
Why do people have to rule lawyer simple rules? Is common sense a rare gift to the few British people that have a brain?. Its simple you can have multiple IC's in a unit but not 1 IC in multiple units.
It would be simple if that were true--and I agree that that is the common-sense approach.
The reason people have to lawyer the rules is because the rules often don't align with common sense. They don't in this case, for example, as I've demonstrated--though it is a little absurd, the rules do allow you to have a character attached to more than one unit.
The real question, I think, is why people become so vehemently defensive--driven to the extent of making things up and resorting to outright lies--when their preconceptions are shown to be false? Is the ability to critically analyze your own beliefs a rare gift to the few American people that have a brain?
lattd
10-20-2011, 07:13 AM
But the rules are common sense as two seperate units cannot be in coherency as was stated in a FAQ, during the period where people use to mix two units to get a cover save for both.
But the rules are common sense as two seperate units cannot be in coherency as was stated in a FAQ, during the period where people use to mix two units to get a cover save for both.
The FAQ does not state that two separate units cannot be in coherency. This, as I've already said, is an utter fabrication.
If you are going to persist in this claim, provide a quote that substantiates it.
Morgan Darkstar
10-20-2011, 07:32 AM
But the rules are common sense as two seperate units cannot be in coherency as was stated in a FAQ, during the period where people use to mix two units to get a cover save for both.
i thought this only covered the fact that only one of the intermingled units got a cover save, not how close they could be together?
Old_Paladin
10-20-2011, 08:08 AM
Really? That's your argument? That ICs don't remain with units until they leave?
That is so obviously internally inconsistent that I don't even really feel compelled to respond to it. Just reiterating it is sufficient to show its flaw.
Your claim is that ICs don't remain with units until they leave.
Yeah, I don't get how he thinks that either; especially when it requires you to outright ignore the IC rule about a unit with an IC moving at the rate of the slowest member. If they weren't a member until the end of the movement phase, then any one could move however they wanted (based on unit type) and no one could lose any special movement USR (as no one would actually be joined until after moves are taken).
Lets look at a similar (yet different) case.
Units embarking in transports [it's like an analogy to IC 'embarking' into a unit]
The embarking, disembarking rules barely talk about unit accually embarked. Just a note about remembering that they are in there.
Right after that they talk about how they can leave. But it doesn't state that they are allowed to stay.
Anyone that states that an IC doesn't stay with a unit every turn (because the rule don't say they get to stay in), should also argue that embarked troops should be kicked out on their next turn because the rules don't outright state that the embarked unit gets to stay.
Which of course would be rediculous. Units stay in transports until they decide to leave. IC count as part of the unit in everyway until they choose to leave.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:00 PM
You're always good for a chuckle Old_Paladin. Keep 'em coming. More apples to oranges comparisons would be super but I'll take whatever you can muster.
You're always good for a chuckle Old_Paladin. Keep 'em coming. More apples to oranges comparisons would be super but I'll take whatever you can muster.
You can make fun of him, but he's not the one whose argument has boiled down to something that isn't even coherent.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:20 PM
I can definitely see how strictly applying the rules on p48 without stuffing words into the author's figurative mouth isn't coherent.
I mean, at least you can mention that you at least obviously know that what you're arguing makes no sense and you're simply ignoring the fact in your defence. Tynskel and OP don't even see it. Tragic, really.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:25 PM
I should say, "strictly applying the rules on p48 to give effect to the outcome indicated by logic and all other GW literature on the subject without stuffing words that cause problematic and absurd situations clearly not intended to arise into the author's figurative mouth" of course.
My bad.
I can definitely see how strictly applying the rules on p48 without stuffing words into the author's figurative mouth isn't coherent.
I mean, at least you can mention that you at least obviously know that what you're arguing makes no sense and you're simply ignoring the fact in your defence. Tynskel and OP don't even see it. Tragic, really.
You keep saying that, but it's just talk.
I've spelled out my argument. You have yet to point out any flaws in my logic or premises. Your only effort has been to make an assertion which is internally inconsistent.
Keep trying. As it is, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Try tackling my actual argument for a change.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:36 PM
http://hackedirl.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/04c521ec-5c45-4cc9-be68-b3bc07a217cb.gif
Kushial
10-20-2011, 12:39 PM
Ok, how is this for a flaw in your interpretation then Bean.
On page 49 in the IC and Shooting, it says the IC "that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit" which means they lose IC status. To be able to join unit, the IC has to first of all be an IC. To get back into IC status, they must leave the unit. So if the IC is part of unit A, then unit A is not allowed to join unit B. The IC would have to leave unit A to get back his Independent status in order to be allowed to join unit B.
So, that's it, then? You're finally admitting that you have no legitimate objection to my argument and are giving up?
Ok, how is this for a flaw in your interpretation then Bean.
On page 49 in the IC and Shooting, it says the IC "that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit" which means they lose IC status. To be able to join unit, the IC has to first of all be an IC. To get back into IC status, they must leave the unit. So if the IC is part of unit A, then unit A is not allowed to join unit B. The IC would have to leave unit A to get back his Independent status in order to be allowed to join unit B.
An interesting attempt, but one that's been tried.
The assertion that ICs stop being ICs while attached to units is false. For one thing, the rules don't state this. They say that ICs are ICs and never state that they stop being ICs.
This can be illustrated fairly easily by looking at the rules that govern an IC leaving a unit. Note that these rules only apply to ICs. If ICs stopped being ICs while attached to units, they could never leave, as only ICs are allowed to leave units. They would be trapped there forever.
Not only is this contention not supported by the rules, it is contradicted by common usage.
So, while I applaud your effort, it is still insufficient. I would be happy to field any further contentions you care to make.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:46 PM
I said on the last page that I've said all that has needed to be said. It was, and remains, true.
You're wrong and I've proved you are. You developing an enormous case of Manilow's Syndrome doesn't change anything.
Now I'm just poking fun at you and your gaggle of sub-normal IQ acolytes. None of you would recognise logic if it beat you with a ****ty stick.
I said on the last page that I've said all that has needed to be said. It was, and remains, true.
You're wrong and I've proved you are. You developing an enormous case of Manilow's Syndrome doesn't change anything.
Now I'm just poking fun at you and your gaggle of sub-normal IQ acolytes. None of you would recognise logic if it beat you with a ****ty stick.
I've already refuted all of those objections. At this point, to anyone with a brain, you're only poking fun at yourself.
Hive Mind
10-20-2011, 12:57 PM
Come now Bean, someone of your obvious intellect can't possibly be so ignorant as to think they're actually making headway in this debate, let alone 'winning' it.
Come now Bean, someone of your obvious intellect can't possibly be so ignorant as to think they're actually making headway in this debate, let alone 'winning' it.
,"
If by "making headway in this debate," and "winning" mean "convincing you," then no--obviously not. If, instead, you mean, "convincing reasonable observers," then yes--I actually think that I probably am.
Wildeybeast
10-20-2011, 02:21 PM
I've already refuted all of those objections. At this point, to anyone with a brain, you're only poking fun at yourself.
Refute : prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false;
prove that (someone) is wrong.
deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)
Well, you did the last one, though I fear 'proof' probably requires something in the way of eivdence, like, say, clear references to the rules?
Just for fun, I'll give you this one again.
P12 "Once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2 ". We call this unit coherency".
Common English understanding: You move each model up to 6 " in such a way that every model you put down maintains coherency with another.
Bean understanding: I move every model 6" in whatever crazy fashion I like, then perform a check (which is required by the rules and yet in no way mentioned by them) at the end of movement to see if they are in coherency. If not go back and repeat ad nauseum until, like chimps writing Shakespeare, they all happen to end up in coherency by sheer weight of probability.
So there is then this on p11:
"You may not go back and change the move of a previous unit." And "Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement phase."
Common english understanding: Bean's interpretation of coherency violates both of these rules as you will be moving a unit again and moving an infantry model over six inches, so his interpretation of the rules must be crazy person nonsense, and more importantly, wrong.
Bean understanding: The GW rules writers are morons and I know better than them, I'm getting really fed up of having to constantly put house rules in place to fix all the stupid flaws in their stupid book and correcting all those stupid internet people who bafflingly don't see the things that are so clear to me.
Refute : prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false;
prove that (someone) is wrong.
deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)
Well, you did the last one, though I fear 'proof' probably requires something in the way of eivdence, like, say, clear references to the rules?
Just for fun, I'll give you this one again.
P12 "Once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2 ". We call this unit coherency".
Common English understanding: You move each model up to 6 " in such a way that every model you put down maintains coherency with another.
Bean understanding: I move every model 6" in whatever crazy fashion I like, then perform a check (which is required by the rules and yet in no way mentioned by them) at the end of movement to see if they are in coherency. If not go back and repeat ad nauseum until, like chimps writing Shakespeare, they all happen to end up in coherency by sheer weight of probability.
So there is then this on p11:
"You may not go back and change the move of a previous unit." And "Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement phase."
Common english understanding: Bean's interpretation of coherency violates both of these rules as you will be moving a unit again and moving an infantry model over six inches, so his interpretation of the rules must be crazy person nonsense, and more importantly, wrong.
Bean understanding: The GW rules writers are morons and I know better than them, I'm getting really fed up of having to constantly put house rules in place to fix all the stupid flaws in their stupid book and correcting all those stupid internet people who bafflingly don't see the things that are so clear to me.
Neither of these points constitute an objection to my conclusion that an IC can be joined to two units, nor does either constitute an objection to the argument that produces that conclusion.
If you want to argue about coherency for the sake of arguing about coherency, start a new thread. I'm basically not going to be side-tracked by irrelevancies in this one.
Tynskel
10-20-2011, 04:10 PM
What I don't understand is why people aren't picking up on the fact that:
1) bean's right, and
2) nobody plays this way, even while he is right.
No one can refute bean's point.
I have been through it a dozen times, and I don't see anything to refute what he's saying. Bean on the other hand, has been able to demonstrate that an IC can just continuously join units. That's the way the rule is written.
However:
Nobody plays this way, or, at least, very few.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:12 PM
Bean, would you consider this one? p 49 as I think mentioned above IC & shooting ''Independant characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets''.
Therefore if they attempted to join another unit then it wouldn't be just the IC attempting to join. It would also be the original unit they were attached to. IC is not a confered to unit special rule. It would make the IC & assaults rules no longer valid.
Again I think the only way you could do this would be to simultaniously join two units at the same time however as I mentioned before many many posts ago the rules don't allow this.
Can't believe this is still going on and actually how entertaining and thought provoking this is.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:15 PM
This would also account for them being able to leave units which of course they can.
doom-kitten
10-20-2011, 04:19 PM
Wow...just wow this arguement is just ridiculous if this is true and IC's can join multiple squads which I highly doubt than thats just broken. I think peoples are being to literal in their reading of the rules because the way I've always seen it is if an IC declares they are joining a unit their with that unit, but if they declaring joining a second they are assumed to have left the original unit. ANyways going back to the first original posy wasn't this about how many IC's can join a unit not how many unit's can join an IC?
Bean, would you consider this one? p 49 as I think mentioned above IC & shooting ''Independant characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets''.
Therefore if they attempted to join another unit then it wouldn't be just the IC attempting to join. It would also be the original unit they were attached to. IC is not a confered to unit special rule. It would make the IC & assaults rules no longer valid.
Again I think the only way you could do this would be to simultaniously join two units at the same time however as I mentioned before many many posts ago the rules don't allow this.
Can't believe this is still going on and actually how entertaining and thought provoking this is.
The issue of how the various units to which a single IC is joined behave is complicated.
However, it is just the IC attempting to join the new unit. The rules don't discuss non-IC units joining other units, and I don't propose that such a thing is possible. Nothing about being attached to a unit dictates that if an IC is attached to a unit, that unit must attempt to "join" any unit the IC joins. The rules don't discuss this particular situation at all, in fact.
So, again, an interesting idea but (again) an insufficient one.
There's no reason to believe that a unit to which an IC is joined is obligated to join any unit that IC joins--the fact that the IC is part of the first unit does not, in and of itself, create such an obligation. Thus the inability of the first unit to join the second isn't relevant. Only the IC is joining anything.
edit:
Also, I agree that the IC cannot join two units simultaneously. The rules are quite clear on that point.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:34 PM
As many IC's as your Force Organisation Chart allows in your army can join your unit at the same time.
Wow...just wow this arguement is just ridiculous if this is true and IC's can join multiple squads which I highly doubt than thats just broken.
I'm afraid that you are right in the literal sense--it actually creates a situation the rules can't handle.
Unfortunately, it is allowed, none-the-less.
I think peoples are being to literal in their reading of the rules because the way I've always seen it is if an IC declares they are joining a unit their with that unit, but if they declaring joining a second they are assumed to have left the original unit.
I had always seen it that way, too, but I don't believe that there is such a thing as "too literal" a reading of the rules. I believe that there are things that the rules say literally and that there are things which are not rules--and that everything falls into one of those two categories.
In this case, what the rules literally say is not the same as what I had always seen done.
ANyways going back to the first original posy wasn't this about how many IC's can join a unit not how many unit's can join an IC?
It was. A handful of conspirators and I have successfully hijacked the thread. Bwahaha!
The original question had already been well and thoroughly answered, though.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:47 PM
Oh I know you agree on that one Bean, I was just looking for a way to make it work.
I'm sorry but it quite clearly states that the IC becomes part of the unit therefore it is the unit attempting to join the other unit not just the IC on his own as it clearly states they are one. It's only in Assaults that they become two seperate units, and even then temporarily and not even for the full turn.
Also come now, I've seen you form some really great arguments on this thread, surely you don't expect me to simply accept the rules don't discuss it as a valid rebuttal of my take on the rules as this is almost the complete basis for your argument.
As both our 'lack of discussion' arguments really cancel each other out would you consider a roll off to decide?
Wildeybeast
10-20-2011, 04:48 PM
Neither of these points constitute an objection to my conclusion that an IC can be joined to two units, nor does either constitute an objection to the argument that produces that conclusion.
If you want to argue about coherency for the sake of arguing about coherency, start a new thread. I'm basically not going to be side-tracked by irrelevancies in this one.
Actually they both do. Again you are ignoring my earlier posts. You have admitted that coherency only applies to a single unit and two units cannot be in coherency with each other, which is exactly what you propose happening under your IC rules. An IC must obey coherency rules and so cannot be in coherency with two units at once. You tried to get round this by introducing your made up coherency check and saying you could be in coherency with one and then another after that and therefore not with them both at the same time. This forced me to have to explain to you how the rules on coherency work and to have to justify them as well, which is what these points do. I can't make it any more clear than that.
So, do you have some reason, directly supported by actual written rules, to say why coherency is not an ongoing process and in fact a one off event at the end of each units movement? Because if not, coherency must be maintained throughout the turn and an IC can only be in coherency with one unit at once, so can only be attached to one unit at once.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:48 PM
Oh I know you agree on that one Bean, I was just looking for a way to make it work.
I'm sorry but it quite clearly states that the IC becomes part of the unit therefore it is the unit attempting to join the other unit not just the IC on his own as it clearly states they are one. It's only in Assaults that they become two seperate units, and even then temporarily and not even for the full turn.
Also come now, I've seen you form some really great arguments on this thread, surely you don't expect me to simply accept the rules don't discuss it as a valid rebuttal of my take on the rules as this is almost the complete basis for your argument.
As both our 'lack of discussion' arguments really cancel each other out would you consider a roll off to decide?
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 04:58 PM
Could you test this one out Bean?
I'm not going to quote pages but here goes. Example, Space marine squad with a heavy weapon. The squad he is part of moves and even if the model itself doesn't move it still counts as moving.
If for some reason we actually get this multi unit joining IC thing to work then you would only be able to move one unit at a time as every time you moved the individual units the IC would count as moving. You can only move once in the movement phase unless you have a special rule that allows.
Does this seem right?
Oh I know you agree on that one Bean, I was just looking for a way to make it work.
I'm sorry but it quite clearly states that the IC becomes part of the unit therefore it is the unit attempting to join the other unit not just the IC on his own as it clearly states they are one. It's only in Assaults that they become two seperate units, and even then temporarily and not even for the full turn.
Also come now, I've seen you form some really great arguments on this thread, surely you don't expect me to simply accept the rules don't discuss it as a valid rebuttal of my take on the rules as this is almost the complete basis for your argument.
As both our 'lack of discussion' arguments really cancel each other out would you consider a roll off to decide?
Sorry, the point about the lack of discussion is an illustrator, not a demonstrator.
The point I was trying to make is that your premise doesn't entail your conclusion. Your premise is this:
An IC becomes part of any unit to which he is joined. I agree
Your conclusion is:
Thus, any unit to which an IC is joined must be able to join any unit the IC wants to join in the future.
This conclusion can't be drawn validly from that premise. It isn't entailed by that premise. It is entirely reasonable to think that an IC can join a unit without putting any such obligation on units to which it is already attached. A unit does not necessarily do everything that each of its constituent units does. When a Librarian uses a psychic power, it isn't the unit as a whole using the psychic power. When a Brotherhood Champion picks his stance, it isn't the unit as a whole that picks a stance.
Even as part of a unit, the IC can take actions which do not involve the rest of the unit. Indeed, it is only reasonable to think that an IC's actions involve the rest of the unit in cases where the rules say they do (shooting, for instance).
The rules for ICs joining units don't place any obligation on units to to which the IC is already joined. No rules place on such a unit the obligation to join any unit the IC joins. Thus, no such obligation exists.
I don't think a roll-off is appropriate, here. First of all, I don't think we actually disagree about how the game should be played--our disagreement is about what the rules say, which isn't necessarily the same thing. Second, I am not basing my position off an argument which is equivalent to yours. I can see how you drew that out of my last post, but the argument on which you chose to focus is not the argument that is important. Sorry about that. I hope this clears that up.
Morgan Darkstar
10-20-2011, 05:07 PM
Could you test this one out Bean?
I'm not going to quote pages but here goes. Example, Space marine squad with a heavy weapon. The squad he is part of moves and even if the model itself doesn't move it still counts as moving.
If for some reason we actually get this multi unit joining IC thing to work then you would only be able to move one unit at a time as every time you moved the individual units the IC would count as moving. You can only move once in the movement phase unless you have a special rule that allows.
Does this seem right?
nice to see another geordie on the forum "or is that being presumptuous?"
@the rest of the crew. this thread is highly entertaining, carry on.
Could you test this one out Bean?
I'm not going to quote pages but here goes. Example, Space marine squad with a heavy weapon. The squad he is part of moves and even if the model itself doesn't move it still counts as moving.
If for some reason we actually get this multi unit joining IC thing to work then you would only be able to move one unit at a time as every time you moved the individual units the IC would count as moving. You can only move once in the movement phase unless you have a special rule that allows.
Does this seem right?
I'm not actually sure that there is a rule which prohibits models from moving more than once during a movement phase--I think the rule might apply only to units, which would change some critical characteristics of the argument.
If we ignore that, though, and presume you are right (and you may well be, I haven't checked that specifically) then we get back around to the conclusion that this creates some very awkward scenarios that aren't really covered adequately by the rules--a good reason to house-rule this out of the game, even if it's not a good reason to believe that the rules are something other than what they are.
Or, in other words, presuming you're right on the one point, yes--that seems like a legitimate interpretation, though I'm not prepared to say that it is the only legitimate interpretation, as I don't think the rules cover this potential situation adequately.
Wildeybeast
10-20-2011, 05:14 PM
Yo Bean, I think you missed my last post cos you haven't replied to it. I thought I'd point that out cos it totally blows a massive hole through the middle of your argument so you might want to address it. Or you could ignore and hope no one else notices, whatevs, I'm cool.:p
Morgan Darkstar
10-20-2011, 05:17 PM
@ Bean
Goiing with the theory that the units the IC is attached to remain separate here's a conundrum
IC attached to three units A,B,C
two enemy units 1,2 within shooting and assault range
Unit A fires at enemy 1 Unit B fires at enemy 1 Unit C fires at enemy 2
who does the IC fire at? as an IC fires along with the unit they are with does he get three shots? this also leads into problems in the assault phase for assaulting the unit you shot at.
You've misunderstood my argument. Let me break it down for you:
Actually they both do. Again you are ignoring my earlier posts. You have admitted that coherency only applies to a single unit and two units cannot be in coherency with each other, which is exactly what you propose happening under your IC rules.
This is flawed.
The fact that the rules for coherency apply only to single units does not necessarily entail the conclusion that two units cannot be in coherency with one another. This would be true if there were no overlap between the two units--that is, no model that belonged to both. However, as the question is whether a model can belong to both, presuming that it cannot is circular and invalid.
My contention, again, is that an IC can join one, then join the other. The coherency rules do not prevent this from happening. The coherency rules do allow for an IC to be in coherency with one unit and be in coherency with another simultaneously. One IC can meet the coherency requirements for two units simultaneously.
Whether this constitutes two units being in coherency with each other is irrelevant.
An IC must obey coherency rules and so cannot be in coherency with two units at once. You tried to get round this by introducing your made up coherency check and saying you could be in coherency with one and then another after that and therefore not with them both at the same time. This forced me to have to explain to you how the rules on coherency work and to have to justify them as well, which is what these points do. I can't make it any more clear than that.
This is your misunderstanding: I didn't mention the coherency check in order to get around your objection. I mentioned the coherency check purely as an aside to demonstrate your failure to accurately comprehend the coherency rules. I was basically just poking fun at you.
My refutation of your objection doesn't rely on this point at all, as demonstrated above.
This is why those two points are irrelevant. They don't address a topic which actually bears on the argument. They only address a topic that was discussed as an aside. I'm sorry if I confused you. Now that I have clarified the relevant portions of that discussion, feel free to reform your objection.
So, do you have some reason, directly supported by actual written rules, to say why coherency is not an ongoing process and in fact a one off event at the end of each units movement? Because if not, coherency must be maintained throughout the turn and an IC can only be in coherency with one unit at once, so can only be attached to one unit at once.
Again, I'm not interested in being pulled into another side debate, even if it is one in which we engaged earlier. I'd be willing to discuss this with you in another thread. but it isn't relevant to this discussion. My response to your objection doesn't depend on anything related to this point at all.
Yo Bean, I think you missed my last post cos you haven't replied to it. I thought I'd point that out cos it totally blows a massive hole through the middle of your argument so you might want to address it. Or you could ignore and hope no one else notices, whatevs, I'm cool.:p
I didn't miss it. You're just impatient.
You haven't blown a hole in my argument. You've merely demonstrated that you don't understand what my argument is.
But I've spelled it out for you more clearly--feel free to have another go.
Wildeybeast
10-20-2011, 05:23 PM
@ Bean
ging with the theory that the units the IC is attached to remain separate here's a conundrum
Unit A fires at enemy 1 Unit B fires at enemy 1 Unit C fires at enemy 2
who does the IC fire at? as an IC fires along with the unit they are with does he get three shots? this also leads into problems in the assault phase for assaulting the unit you shot at.
He doesn't know. I raised this one a while ago, a long with the mobement issue sanguineone raised, his response was 'I'm not sure, I'll make up a house rule to fix it' rather than 'oh this seems incredidbly stupid, maybe I've read the rules wrong'. He actually thinks that there are these collosal game breaking holes in the rules and the designers must be morons not to have spotted them, rather than consider he might be wrong. TBF, if I had backed myself into the kind of stupid and inescable corner he is in, I might be tempted to ignore all reason and convince myself I'm right too.
@ Bean
ging with the theory that the units the IC is attached to remain separate here's a conundrum
Unit A fires at enemy 1 Unit B fires at enemy 1 Unit C fires at enemy 2
who does the IC fire at? as an IC fires along with the unit they are with does he get three shots? this also leads into problems in the assault phase for assaulting the unit you shot at.
Good question.
If your contention is that this scenario leads to serious--perhaps even intractable--problems, you'll get no disagreement from me.
I merely contend that this doesn't change what the rules actually are.
Wildeybeast
10-20-2011, 05:31 PM
I didn't miss it. You're just impatient.
You haven't blown a hole in my argument. You've merely demonstrated that you don't understand what my argument is.
But I've spelled it out for you more clearly--feel free to have another go.
I get your argument, its just bull.
Q. Is coherency an ongoing issue throughout the movement phase, or do the rules tell you to perform a check at the end of moving a unit?
A. The former.
Q. Can one unit be in coherency with another?
A. No
Q. Is an IC part of unit?
A. Yes.
Q. Must he maintain coherency rules (meaning he can only be in coherency with one unit at a time, just like every other model on the board)?
A Yes.
Q. Can he be part of two units at once?
A. No.
Simple really. Unless you can provide a direct quote from the rules that explictily disagrees with any one of those points, an IC cannot be part of two squads at once.
I get your argument, its just bull.
Q. Is coherency an ongoing issue throughout the movement phase, or do the rules tell you to perform a check at the end of moving a unit?
A. The former.
Q. Can one unit be in coherency with another?
A. No
Q. Is an IC part of unit?
A. Yes.
Q. Must he maintain coherency rules (meaning he can only be in coherency with one unit at a time, just like every other model on the board)?
A Yes.
Q. Can he be part of two units at once?
A. No.
Simple really. Unless you can provide a direct quote from the rules that explictily disagrees with any one of those points, an IC cannot be part of two squads at once.
I don't have to. I just have to point out that this:
"meaning he can only be in coherency with one unit at a time, just like every other model on the board"
isn't true. Your objection relies on this assertion, but (of course) it doesn't exist in the rules.
Let me know if you've got anything that's actually based on the rules.
Sanguineone
10-20-2011, 05:54 PM
We can assume that I am a Geordie...via Rhode Island..... but thats another story.
Thats great Bean, I knew you wouldn't dissapoint on both the previous post and the latest query. I think I'll regroup for the evening and take this all into consideration before commenting further.
Kushial
10-20-2011, 06:07 PM
Bean, I still think you're ignoring pieces of the rules that clearly show the IC loses part of his IC abilities when he joins a unit. There are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit. Those include 1. leaving said unit he is attached to, 2. conferring or disallowing some of the unit's rules, and 3. count as a separate unit while in close combat. It also clearly shows he DOES count as part of the unit and not as an IC as well such as when he joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and he also counts as part of the unit for purposes of being locked in combat.
The precedent throughout is that once the IC joins a unit, he is considered "part of that unit" until he chooses to leave it. The is listed on page 48 in regards to movement coherency, page 48 in regards to locked in combat and falling back, page 49 in regards to being shot at, etc, etc. Since only an IC and NOT a unit can join another unit, the IC therefore HAS to leave the unit to regain his IC status to join a unit.
Morgan Darkstar
10-20-2011, 06:10 PM
We can assume that I am a Geordie...via Rhode Island..... but thats another story.
well if you are ever in GW newcastle and i spot you I will be sure to say hello, assuming of course thats you in the pic.
"hmm that sounds really creepy doesn't it? oh well can't be helped" :D
Morgan Darkstar
10-20-2011, 06:13 PM
I think i drank too much last night! :)
Old_Paladin
10-20-2011, 07:52 PM
My 500th post Wooo! :D throws crozius in trash. what psychic powers to choose? and where's my dammed force staff?
Congrat's.
Don't hold your breath on the force weapons. I'm still waiting on mine, they seem to be on back order or something (although, I think Eldargal hid them all, so those pointy-ears feel better about themselves).
Bean, I still think you're ignoring pieces of the rules that clearly show the IC loses part of his IC abilities when he joins a unit. There are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit. Those include 1. leaving said unit he is attached to, 2. conferring or disallowing some of the unit's rules, and 3. count as a separate unit while in close combat. It also clearly shows he DOES count as part of the unit and not as an IC as well such as when he joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and he also counts as part of the unit for purposes of being locked in combat.
This isn't really true. you say that there are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit--but that's not how the rules are set up at all. This is how the rules are set up:
There are rules which say what an IC can do period.
Then there are some more rules which modify what an IC can do while he is attached to a unit.
Unless the rules for being attached to a unit specifically modify an element of the IC's default rules, he retains those default rules--that's the way rules work--and none of the rules for being attached to a unit specifically modify the IC's ability to join units.
You're right--he is part of any unit he joins. This still doesn't entail your conclusion, and your conception of how the rules work in this regard is clearly flawed. There is no set of clear rules which completely re-writes how ICs behave while attached to units; this assertion on your part is simply untrue.
What there is is a handful of disparate rules that modify specific portions of an IC's rules while he is attached to a unit--but none of those rules modify his ability to join units.
Since that ability is not modified, it is retained by default.
The precedent throughout is that once the IC joins a unit, he is considered "part of that unit" until he chooses to leave it. The is listed on page 48 in regards to movement coherency, page 48 in regards to locked in combat and falling back, page 49 in regards to being shot at, etc, etc. Since only an IC and NOT a unit can join another unit, the IC therefore HAS to leave the unit to regain his IC status to join a unit.
None of these precedents you cite entail the conclusion that an IC has to leave a unit to regain his IC status.
Again, no part of the rules states or even suggests that he ever loses his IC status.
It is true that he behaves somewhat differently while attached to a unit, but he remains an IC the entire time and his ability to join units is not one of those behaviors which is modified. It is not modified because it is not mentioned by the rules, and only those behaviors which are specifically mentioned are modified by his being joined to the unit.
Your approach is logically backwards--assuming that the rules must re-grant him specific permission to do each little thing that he can do on his own while he is joined to a unit. This is not the case. The rules grant him permission to do certain things, then revoke certain of those permissions while joined to a unit--that is how the rules are structured in this case. And joining units is not a permission that gets revoked.
lattd
10-21-2011, 04:49 AM
Okay Bean, is the ability to join a unit a USR? No. Is it an USR with an * beside it? No. As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to. As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules. As he looses this rule while part of the unit he cannot use it to join the second unit and if he were to use it he would have to leave the first unit as they do not have the ability to join the second unit.
Before you say the second unit would not combine with the first, it would via the independent character who would act as the bond.
In relation to the rules not saying you can move a model twice, yes they do, the rules say you move unit A then move unit B you cannot go back and move unit A. If an IC is part of unit A and Unit B as soon as you move one you cannot move the other. Under your rules unit A and unit B are separate units both joined by an IC if you move one you cannot move the other, this then applies to shooting if you fire with unit B you could not fire with unit A as the IC is part of both units and cannot fire twice and both units would count as firing as soon as you role a shooting dice for him.
Kushial
10-21-2011, 05:07 AM
You're right--he is part of any unit he joins. This still doesn't entail your conclusion, and your conception of how the rules work in this regard is clearly flawed.
Actually, you're making a leap of logic that isn't supported by anything you've quoted anywhere. You're making the assumption that the IC is simultaneously in a unit and not in a unit at the same time. You can't have it both ways. If he is part of a unit, he cannot join another unit because units aren't allowed to join other units, only ICs can. Unit A+ (say a squad of marines with a librarian) can't join with unit B (some more marines) because two marine squads aren't allowed to join to form a large squad. As long as the precedent within the rules (which is stated several times) that the IC is "part of that unit" and that he has to obey unit rules, then he is clearly PART OF THE UNIT not some nebulous want it to be something else interpretation.
Until you can find a rule that says you're allowed to combine units together, you're just glassing over the one flaw in your logic that you just refuse to address other than saying an IC can join a unit.
Okay Bean, is the ability to join a unit a USR? No. Is it an USR with an * beside it? No. As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to. As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules. As he looses this rule while part of the unit he cannot use it to join the second unit and if he were to use it he would have to leave the first unit as they do not have the ability to join the second unit.
This argument is spurious--and I've already addressed it. We can see the error clearly in your iteration of it, here.
You start by saying:
"As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to."
It is true that the ability to join units is not passed to the unit the IC joins. However, you then move directly into:
" As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules."
This is not true. The "rules concerning special rules." In fact, your grasp of the meaning of the asterisk in the USR section is entirely backwards. You claim that only USRs with asterisks beside them are gained by units joined by ICs that have them. This is entirely false. Let me quote the actual rule, there, for you:
"The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically lost by an independent character joining a unit that does not have the same special rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an independent character that does not have them."
The asterisk doesn't mark rules that are retained, and it doesn't discuss the transfer of rules at all--the asterisk marks rules that are lost, either by the IC or the unit.
All USRs which are not marked with an asterisk are retained.
Of course, the ability to join a unit is not a USR at all, which renders your entire argument irrelevant on a different level, but the fact remains that you not only offer a bad argument, you offer an argument based on a premise which is specifically contradicted by the rules. This is the second time you have made a claim about the rules which is specifically, unequivocally untrue. Please check your facts more carefully before posting in the future.
Before you say the second unit would not combine with the first, it would via the independent character who would act as the bond.
In relation to the rules not saying you can move a model twice, yes they do, the rules say you move unit A then move unit B you cannot go back and move unit A. If an IC is part of unit A and Unit B as soon as you move one you cannot move the other. Under your rules unit A and unit B are separate units both joined by an IC if you move one you cannot move the other, this then applies to shooting if you fire with unit B you could not fire with unit A as the IC is part of both units and cannot fire twice and both units would count as firing as soon as you role a shooting dice for him.
A point that's been made before and which doesn't constitute an objection to my position.
Again, while I appreciate your willingness to enter into the discussion, it would be much better for everyone if you bothered to acquire at least a basic understanding of the argument and the rules in question before posting. Your arguments do little beyond demonstrate that you possess neither. Simply reading the rules in question would go a long way towards rectifying this problem.
Actually, you're making a leap of logic that isn't supported by anything you've quoted anywhere. You're making the assumption that the IC is simultaneously in a unit and not in a unit at the same time. You can't have it both ways. If he is part of a unit, he cannot join another unit because units aren't allowed to join other units, only ICs can. Unit A+ (say a squad of marines with a librarian) can't join with unit B (some more marines) because two marine squads aren't allowed to join to form a large squad. As long as the precedent within the rules (which is stated several times) that the IC is "part of that unit" and that he has to obey unit rules, then he is clearly PART OF THE UNIT not some nebulous want it to be something else interpretation.
Until you can find a rule that says you're allowed to combine units together, you're just glassing over the one flaw in your logic that you just refuse to address other than saying an IC can join a unit.
I'm really not glassing it over, and I'm not making the leap of logic you suggest.
At no point have I ever claimed that the IC is simultaneously in the unit and not in the unit. Never. I never said that or anything similar to that or anything that entails that.
I agree that the IC is part of the unit.
What I don't see--what you have yet to demonstrate--is how that entails the conclusion that the IC can't join another unit.
My argument is not that the IC is mysteriously both part of the unit and not part of the unit--your decision to characterize my argument in this way is entirely unfounded and unfair. My argument is that his belonging to the unit is irrelevant, and you have yet to present any reason to think otherwise.
edit
Actually, I think I see the reason you're suggesting, and I can show you why it is insufficient.
You are correct in noting that a unit is not allowed to join another unit. The rules don't give a unit permission to join another unit.
However, the rules also don't prohibit a unit from joining another unit--failing to allow something is not necessarily the same as prohibiting it.
Now, if that were the end of the story, you'd be right--you can't do something unless it is allowed by the rules. There're no rules that specifically allow a unit to join another unit, and if that were the extent of the relevant rules, that would be enough to sustain your conclusion.
That isn't the extent of the relevant rules, though. The rules do allow ICs to join other units--and ICs, as you note, can operate as part of a unit.
So, even though the rules don't specifically say, "units can join other units" they offer a means by which units can effectively be joined to other units--through shared ICs.
Your error is in construing a failure to specifically allow something as a prohibition against that thing. The two are not the same, and the rules only contain the former, not the latter. And, though the rules don't specifically allow it to happen, they do specifically allow another thing to happen which can produce that result.
What your argument needs is a prohibition against that result, but no such prohibition exists, and it is not legitimate to construe the absence of a specific rule for joining units together as a prohibition against that possibility in and of itself. That absence would have to be paired with an absence of any other rules which allow that result in order to constitute a prohibition, and it is not--there is another rule which allows that result.
Kushial
10-21-2011, 05:35 AM
I'm really not glassing it over, and I'm not making the leap of logic you suggest.
At no point have I ever claimed that the IC is simultaneously in the unit and not in the unit. Never. I never said that or anything similar to that or anything that entails that.
I agree that the IC is part of the unit.
What I don't see--what you have yet to demonstrate--is how that entails the conclusion that the IC can't join another unit.
My argument is not that the IC is mysteriously both part of the unit and not part of the unit--your decision to characterize my argument in this way is entirely unfounded and unfair. My argument is that his belonging to the unit is irrelevant, and you have yet to present any reason to think otherwise.
No, the characterization is not either unfounded or unfair. It is exactly what you're trying to do. You want to create a super AB+ unit that is made up of 2 squads and an IC. Since the IC is part of unit A and you are not allowed to combine squads into a super unit, then A cannot join B regardless of the IC being involved. You're trying to say that the IC is in unit A but doesn't apply toward being in a unit to join unit B by himself. Since he is bringing unit A with him to form unit AB+ though, you're breaking one of the basic rules by forming an illegal squad made up of two units on the table.
Since the units cannot merge, it clearly demonstrates that the IC cannot join a second unit without leaving the first.
Like I said previously, until you find a rule that clearly says you're allowed to combine multiple units, what you are trying to do is clearly illegal under the rules.
No, the characterization is not either unfounded or unfair. It is exactly what you're trying to do.
No, it's not. Creating a super AB+ unit doesn't at any point imagining that the IC is both part of a unit and not part of a unit.
You want to create a super AB+ unit that is made up of 2 squads and an IC. Since the IC is part of unit A and you are not allowed to combine squads into a super unit, then A cannot join B regardless of the IC being involved. You're trying to say that the IC is in unit A but doesn't apply toward being in a unit to join unit B by himself. Since he is bringing unit A with him to form unit AB+ though, you're breaking one of the basic rules by forming an illegal squad made up of two units on the table.
I am not claiming that being in unit A doesn't count towards being in a unit--obviously it does. I only claim that being in unit A doesn't impinge upon the ICs ability to join unit B. These are two distinct claims that you are erroneously conflating.
Further, this "basic rule" you suggest does not exist. I address this in the edited portion of my post above.
Since the units cannot merge, it clearly demonstrates that the IC cannot join a second unit without leaving the first.
This prohibition against units merging does not exist, and thus doesn't clearly demonstrate anything.
Like I said previously, until you find a rule that clearly says you're allowed to combine multiple units, what you are trying to do is clearly illegal under the rules.
I have found such a rule. It's on page 48. I quoted it in my argument, which seem to no longer be interested in actually addressing. If you're not going to address my argument, but persist in addressing this fictitious argument you have ascribed to me in your head, I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion.
If you want to continue the discussion, please refrain from mischaracterizing my argument in future, and refer to my previous post for a demonstration of the flaw in what I believe is the only legitimate argument to be mined from your last two posts.
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 09:41 AM
I don't have to. I just have to point out that this:
"meaning he can only be in coherency with one unit at a time, just like every other model on the board"
isn't true. Your objection relies on this assertion, but (of course) it doesn't exist in the rules.
Let me know if you've got anything that's actually based on the rules.
Doesn't exist in the rules eh? The coherency rules explictly refer only to models in a single unit and since there is no other reference anywhere in the book to coherency existing between units, we must conclude that coherency only exists between models in a single unit, as stated in the coherency rules.
Logic then dictates that if if coherency only exists between models in one unit, it cannot exist between models in two different units.
Do you have any valid reason to question any steps of my reasoning?
Doesn't exist in the rules eh? The coherency rules explictly refer only to models in a single unit and since there is no other reference anywhere in the book to coherency existing between units, we must conclude that coherency only exists between models in a single unit, as stated in the coherency rules.
Logic then dictates that if if coherency only exists between models in one unit, it cannot exist between models in two different units.
Do you have any valid reason to question any steps of my reasoning?
Yes.
Your argument is:
1.) The coherency rules explictly refer only to models in a single unit
and
2.) there is no other reference anywhere in the book to coherency existing between units,
therefore
3.) coherency only exists between models in a single unit, as stated in the coherency rules.
therefore
4.) it cannot exist between models in two different units.
Step 3 involves an invalid logical leap.
The conclusion that coherency only exists between models in a single unit isn't entailed by the fact that the rules for coherency only refer to models in a single unit and there is no reference to coherency existing between units.
The rules for unit coherency tell us how to determine whether a single unit meets the unit coherency requirement. That's all it tells us. It doesn't explicitly give us a way to check that two units which share a model meet the unit coherency requirement, but we can apply the rule to each of those units individually and see that, despite sharing a model, they can each meet the coherency requirement. The fact that the rule only deals with one unit at a time only means that we must apply it to each unit individually--it does not somehow magically constitute a prohibition against two units sharing a model and thus, in some sense, being in coherency with each other.
We see, then, that the fact that the coherency rules only deal with a unit at a time doesn't constitute a prohibition against a model belonging to more than one unit.
Your logic is invalid. I hope this puts that argument to rest.
Actually, there's an easy visual illustration of my last point. Here's the rundown:
The objection Wildeybeast offers to my position is based solely on the coherency rules (and a lack of modifying rules elsewhere). This means his objection is only valid if, after doing what I propose (joining to one unit an IC which is already joined to another) the resulting units violate the coherency rules. If they do violate the coherency rules, I am wrong. If they don't, Wildeybeast is wrong. So, let's set up two units, sharing an IC as I suggest, and see if they violate the coherency rules:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IC
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
There it is--the models from unit one, the IC, and the models from unit two.
Now, the rules for unit coherency on page 12 state:
"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'"
The IC was attached to unit one. Unit two moved before unit one, unit one moved to bring the IC to within the 2" coherency distance of unit two as required by the rules for joining ICs to units on page 48, and the IC joined unit 2. Both units are finished moving, with unit one having just finished moving.
Is either unit out of coherency?
No.
The models in unit one form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2".
The models in unit two form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2".
Both units meet the requirements of the coherency rules, and that is really an unequivocal refutation of the coherency-based argument against my position. No matter how much logical verbiage you may try to build up around the coherency rules, when you actually apply them to the situation I suggest, that situation is entirely consistent with their requirements. Thus, those requirements cannot possibly constitute a prohibition against my suggestion.
Sanguineone
10-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Bean, not sure about this and as really all we are doing here are exploring the options fully I don't mind putting something to the table even if it goes against what I believe.
But.......and this could be totally off as I don't have access to my rulebook at the moment. But aren't there referances to coherency between units in the vehicle rules? Specifically the part about vehicle squadrons. Also as I said before no book at the moment so not sure of the particulars as to if the squadron in that case counts as one unit and also if this is dependant to the codex in use. Hopefully something new for us all to consider.
Bean, not sure about this and as really all we are doing here are exploring the options fully I don't mind putting something to the table even if it goes against what I believe.
But.......and this could be totally off as I don't have access to my rulebook at the moment. But aren't there referances to coherency between units in the vehicle rules? Specifically the part about vehicle squadrons. Also as I said before no book at the moment so not sure of the particulars as to if the squadron in that case counts as one unit and also if this is dependant to the codex in use. Hopefully something new for us all to consider.
No, I don't think there are. A vehicle squadron is a single unit--it's not a collection of units. Though vehicles are often units consisting of a single model, vehicle squadrons are simply units consisting of multiple vehicle models.
Coherency between vehicles in a squadron isn't coherency between units
It is an interesting thought, though.
The thing that comes closest to dealing with coherency between units, as far as I can remember, are the "strike force" rules for some apocalypse formations, but I really don't think those have anything to contribute--they don't even use the word coherency.
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 12:01 PM
Step 3 involves an invalid logical leap.
The conclusion that coherency only exists between models in a single unit isn't entailed by the fact that the rules for coherency only refer to models in a single unit and there is no reference to coherency existing between units.
The rules for unit coherency tell us how to determine whether a single unit meets the unit coherency requirement. That's all it tells us. It doesn't explicitly give us a way to check that two units which share a model meet the unit coherency requirement, but we can apply the rule to each of those units individually and see that, despite sharing a model, they can each meet the coherency requirement. The fact that the rule only deals with one unit at a time only means that we must apply it to each unit individually--it does not somehow magically constitute a prohibition against two units sharing a model and thus, in some sense, being in coherency with each other.
We see, then, that the fact that the coherency rules only deal with a unit at a time doesn't constitute a prohibition against a model belonging to more than one unit.
Your logic is invalid. I hope this puts that argument to rest.
No it doesn't, my step in not invalid. The coherency rules which you have quoted and yet still not understood are quite clear.
Lets me phrase it like this: What is 'unit coherency'? If we were looking for the rules to define unit coherency, what would they say? Well handily, they do this for us.
"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'"
That explains exactly what unit coherency is, in a precisely defined manner and the definition is for models within a single unit only. It really is very clear and simple.
Also, your method of applying coherency to each unit individually is once again returning to your made up coherency check at the end of moving a unit, which ignores the fact that coherency is an ongoing and active rule throughout the turn, it is not 'switched' on and off at certain times.
As for your diagramexample, yes applying them to the situation is the fashion you suggest does not violate rules, but that is because the method you suggest is wrong. I again state that coherency is ongoing and not a one off check. Your IC is not out of coherency with either unit as such, he simply can't be in cohernecy with two units at once.
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 12:14 PM
Actually, scratch all that, it's suddenly clicked why you think as you do, and why you are wrong.
"If the character is within the 2 " of more than one unit at the end of it's movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."
You have emphasised the second part of that sentence and maintain that as he has already joined a unit, he is not joining it again and as such does not have to choose between two units as he only has the possibility of joining one unit, being already joined to another.
You have misunderstood the sentence. The first part is what you should be emphasising, as it it the main proposition of the sentence. If the character is within the 2 " of more than one unit at the end of it's movement phase,. Anything that follow this statement is overridden by this first premise. The character is within 2 " of more than one unit, whether he is already joined to one, two, five or no units is irrelevant. If he was not joined to any units, he would have to make a choice to join one, if he is already joined, he has to make a choice to join one.
I know this won't persuade you, but I'm happy now because I finally understand why you think as you do and know conclusively why you are wrong. It's not due to bad rules, just your flawed understanding of English.
Actually, scratch all that, it's suddenly clicked why you think as you do, and why you are wrong.
"If the character is within the 2 " of more than one unit at the end of it's movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."
You have emphasised the second part of that sentence and maintain that as he has already joined a unit, he is not joining it again and as such does not have to choose between two units as he only has the possibility of joining one unit, being already joined to another.
You have misunderstood the sentence. The first part is what you should be emphasising, as it it the main proposition of the sentence. If the character is within the 2 " of more than one unit at the end of it's movement phase,. Anything that follow this statement is overridden by this first premise. The character is within 2 " of more than one unit, whether he is already joined to one, two, five or no units is irrelevant. If he was not joined to any units, he would have to make a choice to join one, if he is already joined, he has to make a choice to join one.
I have not misunderstood the sentence.
I agree completely that the IC must choose to join one. In the scenario I outline above, the IC chooses to join unit 2--the unit to which he is not already joined.
Simple as that, my suggestion meets all of the requirements of this rule.
And, after joining unit two, the IC is now joined to unit one and unit two--as it never de-joined from unit one.
I understand this rule perfectly, and have applied it to my position in its entirety. It does nothing to contradict my conclusion.
I haven't over-emphasized the first portion of the rule. I have dealt with every portion of the rule, and explained how my position is consistent with all portions of the rule, taken individually or on the whole. You must have just forgotten that.
I know this won't persuade you, but I'm happy now because I finally understand why you think as you do and know conclusively why you are wrong. It's not due to bad rules, just your flawed understanding of English.
You really don't understand my argument at all--you've made that clear time and time again, and it is still true.
But, hey--you've also made it clear that you're perfectly happy to live in your imagination instead of facing reality, so this isn't really a surprise to me. Have fun in your fantasy land.
Also, for the record, the argument above this one is also deeply flawed. Its flaw should be obvious to any rational observer, but if you feel compelled to continue this, I'd be happy to explain it to you. To begin, you should explain to us how the coherency rule applied the way you want to apply it renders the scenario I propose in my example illegal. Show us how the rule is violated.
Remember that the distinction you draw between your application of the coherency rules and mine is only that I want to check for coherency at specific instants and you want to check for coherency continually.
Fine, let's presume you were checking for coherency continually--at what point would the units in the example I offered start to violate the coherency rules, and in what way would they be violating the coherency rules?
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 12:37 PM
I have not misunderstood the sentence.
I agree completely that the IC must choose to join one. In the scenario I outline above, the IC chooses to join unit 2--the unit to which he is not already joined.
Simple as that, my suggestion meets all of the requirements of this rule.
And, after joining unit two, the IC is now joined to unit one and unit two--as it never de-joined from unit one.
I understand this rule perfectly, and have applied it to my position in its entirety. It does nothing to contradict my conclusion.
I haven't over-emphasized the first portion of the rule. I have dealt with every portion of the rule, and explained how my position is consistent with all portions of the rule, taken individually or on the whole. You must have just forgotten that.
You really don't understand my argument at all--you've made that clear time and time again, and it is still true.
But, hey--you've also made it clear that you're perfectly happy to live in your imagination instead of facing reality, so this isn't really a surprise to me. Have fun in your fantasy land.
Also, for the record, the argument above this one is also deeply flawed. Its flaw should be obvious to any rational observer, but if you feel compelled to continue this, I'd be happy to explain it to you. To begin, you should explain to us how the coherency rule applied the way you want to apply it renders the scenario I propose in my example illegal. Show us how the rule is violated.
Any unit that is within 2" of the character meets the criteria for being one of the units he must pick from to join. Whether he is already in the unit is irrelevant, is in within 2" of it. Problem sorted.
I think given that Tynksel is the only person who agrees with you, it's safe to say that I'm not the one in fantasy land (or if I am, everyone else is here to kep me company:) ). You don't need to go on, I am now happy I can explain to anyone who understands english properly why you are wrong, so I really am done here. Thanks for the debate, you have honed my sparring skills and my rules analysis, and got me up to Librarian, so I'm all good, thanks. Hope you enjoyed it too.
Any unit that is within 2" of the character meets the criteria for being one of the units he must pick from to join. Whether he is already in the unit is irrelevant, is in within 2" of it. Problem sorted.
I agree. Whether he is already in the unit is irrelevant. So, he can easily pick to join the unit he isn't in. Since he never leaves the first unit, he is now in both.
I'm glad you've finally come around to my side.
Problem sorted.
I think given that Tynksel is the only person who agrees with you, it's safe to say that I'm not the one in fantasy land (or if I am, everyone else is here to kep me company:) ). You don't need to go on, I am now happy I can explain to anyone who understands english properly why you are wrong, so I really am done here. Thanks for the debate, you have honed my sparring skills and my rules analysis, and got me up to Librarian, so I'm all good, thanks. Hope you enjoyed it too.
Old Paladin agreed with me, too. I count maybe four who agree with me (including myself and, now, you) three or four who disagree with me and a couple who are on the fence.
i'm glad you feel better about your analytical skills, but I can tell you that they still need a lot of work. You went through a lot of really, deeply flawed arguments before you finally came around. I would suggest taking a college level critical thinking course--it could really help you out with this sort of basic logic and analysis.
Also, I know you don't really agree with me, but it was just too hilarious that your final argument did nothing but confirm and support my position--you really should look into that critical thinking course. You are clearly in desperate need of one.
Finally, you have been amusing, but I won't be sad to see you quit this conversation. The brief injections of hilarity your irrationality has brought to this conversation have been growing fewer and farther between, not to mention more and more dull. You never really had anything intelligent to contribute, but lately you haven't even been contributing much humor. It's probably a good idea to just bow out now.
Just so you know, Bean, I totally understand your argument.
You're doing an amazing job, so I won't interfere and muddle things up, but you've got one more lurker-supporter.
And I'll never play this way and never have - but that's entirely thanks to house rules.
Lastly, I hope everyone here understands the passive:
"I am joined to unit A"
versus the Active:
"I join unit A"
Otherwise, "Yes, dear, I am gone to the store! No need to shout!"
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 04:32 PM
I agree. Whether he is already in the unit is irrelevant. So, he can easily pick to join the unit he isn't in. Since he never leaves the first unit, he is now in both.
I'm glad you've finally come around to my side.
Problem sorted.
Old Paladin agreed with me, too. I count maybe four who agree with me (including myself and, now, you) three or four who disagree with me and a couple who are on the fence.
i'm glad you feel better about your analytical skills, but I can tell you that they still need a lot of work. You went through a lot of really, deeply flawed arguments before you finally came around. I would suggest taking a college level critical thinking course--it could really help you out with this sort of basic logic and analysis.
Also, I know you don't really agree with me, but it was just too hilarious that your final argument did nothing but confirm and support my position--you really should look into that critical thinking course. You are clearly in desperate need of one.
Finally, you have been amusing, but I won't be sad to see you quit this conversation. The brief injections of hilarity your irrationality has brought to this conversation have been growing fewer and farther between, not to mention more and more dull. You never really had anything intelligent to contribute, but lately you haven't even been contributing much humor. It's probably a good idea to just bow out now.
I don't agree with you. He has to pick a unit, including the one he is already in. If he wants to stay attached to that one, he has to pick it as hsi choice. I was trying to be amicable in ending our debate, but you really an arrogant and odious little toad. I'll admit that my humor contribution is low, but that is because unlike you, I focused on facts and supporting my arguments using the rules. Oh and just for the record, I have post grad qualifications from Oxford university, so it will be a cold day in hell before I take further education advice from someone who thinks that simply shouting the same thing over and over and making up rules to support his position is a valid form of argumentation.
I don't agree with you. He has to pick a unit, including the one he is already in.
Now you're emphasizing the wrong part of the rule. Let me help: he has to pick a unit to join--active voice. he doesn't have to pick a unit to be joined to.
If he wants to stay attached to that one, he has to pick it as hsi choice.
This assertion is entirely unsupported by the rules. ICs stay attached to units unless the rules say they leave. The rules for joining units don't entail any leaving. Thus, you are wrong.
I was trying to be amicable in ending our debate,
Don't lie. You're no good at it.
but you really an arrogant and odious little toad. I'll admit that my humor contribution is low, but that is because unlike you, I focused on facts and supporting my arguments using the rules. Oh and just for the record, I have post grad qualifications from Oxford university, so it will be a cold day in hell before I take further education advice from someone who thinks that simply shouting the same thing over and over and making up rules to support his position is a valid form of argumentation.
How embarrassing for Oxford. Not only irrational, hypocritical as well.
You gonna keep shouting the same thing over and over again and making up rules, or bow out like you said you would? At this point, I was really looking forward to not having to point out the same logical flaws over and over again.
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 04:57 PM
Don't lie. You're no good at it.
Point out what you percieve to be flaws in my argument all you like, but what do you think gives you the right to not only insult my intelligence but also call me a liar? I wonder what makes you so special that you feel qualified to pass judgement on people you have never met?
Because this:
I know this won't persuade you, but I'm happy now because I finally understand why you think as you do and know conclusively why you are wrong. It's not due to bad rules, just your flawed understanding of English.
Followed by this:
You don't need to go on, I am now happy I can explain to anyone who understands english properly why you are wrong, so I really am done here. Thanks for the debate, you have honed my sparring skills and my rules analysis, and got me up to Librarian, so I'm all good, thanks. Hope you enjoyed it too.
doesn't constitute an effort to be amicable. It's not a case of my being special--it's a case of my being literate. Your misrepresentation of your intentions is obvious. ;)
Also, don't dish it out if you can't take it. It's far too late to start complaining about hurt feelings, now.
Wildeybeast
10-21-2011, 05:22 PM
Hurt felings? No mate, I'd actually have to care what you thought to be offended by you :D Seriously though, its been fun, you have your view, I have mine and the community seems split, so I'm happy to let this one go. I look forward to next time.
Hurt felings? No mate, I'd actually have to care what you thought to be offended by you :D Seriously though, its been fun, you have your view, I have mine and the community seems split, so I'm happy to let this one go. I look forward to next time.
That, I suppose I can accept as amicable.
;)
Morgan Darkstar
10-21-2011, 06:05 PM
This is possibly the most entertaining rules debate i have followed on bols :D
Here's to 20 more pages.
Sanguineone
10-22-2011, 04:09 AM
It states in core rulebook that you can't join monstrous creatures.
I think off topic a bit but if all the super units from way back were joined would they count as a unit?...........
Sanguineone
10-22-2011, 04:21 AM
Because I think they may be limited to unit size........
Scratch that......there is no limit to unit size, just how many you can buy for it.
Back to the drawing board........
Morgan Darkstar
10-22-2011, 05:29 AM
It states in core rulebook that you can't join monstrous creatures.
actually it doesn't, what it actually states is
Independent charectors are allowed to join other units.
They cannot however join vehichle squadrons (see vehicle section)
and units that always consist of a single model (like most vehicles
and monsrtous creatures). They can join other independent charectors though,
to form a powerfull multi-charactor unit!
page 48 5th edition rulebook.
thus a tyranid IC could join a unit of carnifex
Sanguineone
10-22-2011, 07:30 AM
I'm with you there morgan. However does this mean that if lets say for example that your Carnafex wasn't running with some buddies that he would then not be allowed to be joined by an IC? As you have only paid for 1 of the creatures of 1 - 3 (not sure how many you can have in a brood) then the unit would always consist of a single model.
I've often thought that this rule needed more clarification. What does 'always consist of a single model' constitute? Now I was under the assumption that this would be something that would be covered in a units special rules. For example the Space Wolves Lone Wolf. He can never be joined or be part of a unit and it states so in his special rules. If it is a given that a unit of 1 cannot be joined then why add this in? purely for fluff?
I came across this query with the release of the Blood Angels codex. Notably there are a couple characters that have the IC special rule missing. I was under the impression that although the couldn't join a unit that they could be joined by an IC.
Hmmm as mentioned earlier in this post there is noting in the rules that states a ubit can't join another unit, but this is off topic.
So anyway I then proceeded to get someone from the GW order line to send me an email with a judgement on if this was possible, as they tell you in the back of white dwarf to get rule queries answered by them or your local store.
The result I was pleased to say was you could in fact join and IC to both Mephiston and DC Tycho. this opened up a whole new range of possibilities for me. Chaplains with DC Tycho to give him rerolls to hit and wound, Terminator Librarians with mephiston to give him an invunerable against high AP shooting weapons(or at least better odds) or add him to a super unit.
Needless to say I was pleased that the shine wasn't lost from the characters by them losing there IC as there was this saving grace.
Then two weeks later the FAQ came out and said that they were units that always consist on a single model.
I can see that maybe they decided to put this in the rule to clear up the confusion that would come about if a model was reduced to 1 through losses but I'm unsure as to where you stand if you didn't buy the additional models.
What do you think of this?
Morgan Darkstar
10-22-2011, 03:37 PM
Personaly I would go with.
An IC can join a unit consisting of a single model as long as that model has the 'possibility' of being more than a one model unit.
so yes i think an IC could join an individual monstrous creature as long as that monstrous creature can be taken in units of more than one.
Sanguineone
10-22-2011, 04:09 PM
Sure you aren't just talking about librarian IC, with foresight as standard?
It would only be possible for them to be more than one in the next game.
I do think that is probably how it is intended, but it doesn't say that in the rulebook.
I think the whole section needed just that little bit more detail.
lattd
10-23-2011, 05:34 AM
Sorry Bean i do not have access to my rulebook its in another part of the country and i haven't played 40k in a good year so i think i did quite well remembering the rules.
I do understand the logic of your argument but i believe it fly's in the face of the rules which state : if an independent character ends his movement within 2" of two units has to decide which one he joins. If he is already attached to unit A and ends up 2" away from unit B he would have to choose which one he joins as he would be within 2" of both.
Sorry Bean i do not have access to my rulebook its in another part of the country and i haven't played 40k in a good year so i think i did quite well remembering the rules.
From what I recall, the rule you keep 'mis-remembering' is one you claim is in the FAQ, not in the rulebook, and the FAQ is online. If you can post here, you can go check it. =P
I do understand the logic of your argument but i believe it fly's in the face of the rules which state : if an independent character ends his movement within 2" of two units has to decide which one he joins. If he is already attached to unit A and ends up 2" away from unit B he would have to choose which one he joins as he would be within 2" of both.
I've explained this about half a dozen times, now.
You are correct--the IC does have to choose to join unit A or unit B. But, if the IC is already attached to unit A or unit B, it can join the other one--and that doesn't entail leaving the first. As a result, the IC can end up joined to both units.
Note the difference between the word join in the rule and the word joined I'm using here.
The IC has to pick which unit to join. He doesn't have to pick which unit he is joined to.
That difference is sufficient to lay this objection to rest, as I've spelled out several times already.
It is true that if the IC gets within 2" of two units in the movement phase, he must choose which one to join.
However, if he was already a part of one and gets within 2" of another, he can choose the second unit.
Having joined to the second unit through his choice, he does NOT lose his "joined-status" with the first.
In this way he has joined two units.
MaxKool
11-02-2011, 03:30 PM
Just a note for any of the noobs who are looking for help...
This is strictly a raw/rai argument, I'll just warn u now not to try and play like this.
This is not rai, and i will again state that your whole arguement bean hangs on the fact that u forget what a permissive ruleset is.
Permissive means that if it dosnt say u CAN do Somthing u can't just do it by saying it dosnt say u can't.
Gw has stated that the game is written permissively and to play it as such. It dosnt say and IC can't be in two squads at once but NOWHERE in the rules does it say explicitly that u can do this.
Every time I bring up what these kinds of rules mean bean just points to more of his "it dosnt say he leaves the 1st unit" bs. Wich as I'm saying dosnt mean u can do it.... Look up permissive ruleset....
Just a note for any of the noobs who are looking for help...
This is strictly a raw/rai argument, I'll just warn u now not to try and play like this.
This is not rai, and i will again state that your whole arguement bean hangs on the fact that u forget what a permissive ruleset is.
Permissive means that if it dosnt say u CAN do Somthing u can't just do it by saying it dosnt say u can't.
Gw has stated that the game is written permissively and to play it as such. It dosnt say and IC can't be in two squads at once but NOWHERE in the rules does it say explicitly that u can do this.
Every time I bring up what these kinds of rules mean bean just points to more of his "it dosnt say he leaves the 1st unit" bs. Wich as I'm saying dosnt mean u can do it.... Look up permissive ruleset....
I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from lying about what I've written.
I've addressed the "premissive rules-set" argument presented by you and others. It is not, in any way, a rejection of my argument, as my argument fully incorporates and accounts for the permissive nature of the rules.
The rules permit a character to join multiple units. This is not a result of them simply failing to prohibit it. I've stated this many, many times, and it remains true. Your objection is not just spurious, it is, at this point, a knowing deception and obfuscation of the point. Your lack of integrity is, frankly, appalling.
edit:
That said, it is true that this is a RAW vs. RAI issue: the RAW is clear. The intent is about as clear as intent ever is for these things, and I would certainly agree with the assertion that you shouldn't join an IC to multiple units simultaneously. It creates situations that the rules actually can't handle, and a much simpler house rule is simply to disallow it.
Morgan Darkstar
11-02-2011, 03:58 PM
Just a note for any of the noobs who are looking for help...
This is strictly a raw/rai argument, I'll just warn u now not to try and play like this.
Cute that you think you can tell others how to play!
Come on O'mighty know'ar of how to play 40k I am interested to know how I should play? :rolleyes:
MaxKool
11-02-2011, 05:46 PM
I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from lying about what I've written.
I've addressed the "premissive rules-set" argument presented by you and others. It is not, in any way, a rejection of my argument, as my argument fully incorporates and accounts for the permissive nature of the rules.
The rules permit a character to join multiple units. This is not a result of them simply failing to prohibit it. I've stated this many, many times, and it remains true. Your objection is not just spurious, it is, at this point, a knowing deception and obfuscation of the point. Your lack of integrity is, frankly, appalling.
edit:
That said, it is true that this is a RAW vs. RAI issue: the RAW is clear. The intent is about as clear as intent ever is for these things, and I would certainly agree with the assertion that you shouldn't join an IC to multiple units simultaneously. It creates situations that the rules actually can't handle, and a much simpler house rule is simply to disallow it.
OK bean,
YOU obviosly dont understand what a permisive ruleset is, as if u did you wouldnt be trying to justify this.
Again I will retype it as you never seem to get it....
Permisive rules lay out what you can do not what you cant do. How can it be any more clear, The rulebook is FULL of things that dont say "you cant do this" But people dont try and do them, WHY because thats not How the book was written. You have taken the rules as written and interpreted them into a differant system that in your world if it syas nothing about not doing somthing then it must be possible. This is the fundamental flaw in your logic. This is how the authors wrote the book. GW dosnt and NEVER has written rules the way you seem to want them. Warmachine on the other hand DOES lay out exactly what you can and cant do, its NOT a permisive ruleset its an Absolute ruleset. BIG DIFFERANCE MAN.
Either way I agree to disagree and that will be that.
And the other dude....
Hell ya ill tell other people how to play, thats WHAT THE RULES FORUM IS FOR. listen to the advice or dont, It dosnt matter to me. Im just trying to save some poor new player from going into his LGS or first GT and trying to pull off this crap. Ive asked all my local reffs, and they just laughed at me. So Im just trying to save them some greif. Cause the way you are talking, this is the proper way to play. And all I was saying is Bean myself and others were having a more RAI/RAW arguement and even BEAN said you shouldnt play this way.
So in short NO dont play this way, yah im telling you how to play.... its the internet... Dont listen then... no sweat off my sack.
In 20 years of playing gw games i can honestly say I think ive seen it all now, this is about it.... hopefully nothing new will surprise me till 6th ed drops....
Morgan Darkstar
11-02-2011, 06:29 PM
Ok let's clear something up..
1a) the rules forum is NOT for telling others how to play the game. advise' yes. discuss' yes. telling people your right and others are wrong' most certainly not.
1b) I can read, and I am aware that bean has said that people shouldn't play this way. Personally I don't, and I have never said you should 'please dont misquote me or put words in my mouth' however if people wanted to, they wouldn't be wrong for doing so. 40k is a permissive ruleset, from the standpoint that anything goes as long as your opponent agrees. It says as much in the book.
The rules are there as a framework and guide, not an absolute.
2) I Don't believe This
Dude I give up you are right. I guess everyone has been playing wrong all these years and it tool your brilliant intellect to show us the light.
Or this
You bean are a moron and I will be promptly adding you to my ignore list. The info you shared here is a bunch of bull**** rules lawyering crap. Following the age old Cheaters Mantra of "it doesn't say I can't so I'm gonna" you have come off like a complete know it all prick trying to convince us to break the game. Thanks for the humor if nothing else, this will be one to talk about at our lgs lol....
Speaking of children's intellect my daughter even understands that just because daddy doesn't say she can't draw on the walls doesn't mean she can...... You can't even grasp this, all the while calling others childlike... Rich man...
Constitutes a reasoned rai/raw debate.
The whole point of being on the BoLS rules forum to me is that I can get into a technical discussion of rules points and have faith that (i) the folks I'm debating with are good enough sportsmen to distinguish technical rules discussions from how we actually play the game, and (ii) people are not going to insult me in the course of the debate, whether because they disagree with me or otherwise.
Stop being so abusive.
david5th
11-02-2011, 11:34 PM
This is starting to reach Doom of Malan'tai spirit leech proportions. Never had so much enjoyment from a thread.
MaxKool might be ignoring me, but I, for whatever reason, feel compelled to spell this out again, just to demonstrate once and for all that his assertions are false. This is the argument:
1.) Page 48 of the rulebook tell us how independent characters join units. They permit an IC to join a unit as long as the IC meets a certain set of requirements.
2.) The requirements for joining a unit can be met by an IC which is already joined to a unit.
3.) If there are no other rules which specifically prohibit an IC from being joined to more than one unit at a time or from joining a unit while joined to another unit, 1 and 2 are sufficient to allow an IC to end up joined to more than one unit at once, by simply joining one unit while already attached to another.
4.) There are no other rules which specifically prohibit an IC from being joined to more than one unit at a time or from joining a unit while joined to another unit.
5.) Thus, an IC may be joined to more than one unit at once.
You'll note, of course, that premise four does note an absence of prohibitions--this is a necessary portion of any rules argument, as (even within a so-called "permissive" rules-set) specific prohibitions can over-rule generalized permissions.
My argument notes a generalized permission sufficient to allow the result I suggest. It then notes the lack of specific prohibitions against that result or the actions that lead to it.
It has never and does not now rest solely on the notion that the suggestion is legal because the rules do not prohibit it. MaxKool is a liar.
I hope that settles this particular objection. My argument is not and has never been "the rules don't say I can't do it so I can." If you (and here I used the generalized "you") are so utterly lacking in integrity that you feel compelled to make this claim, expect your prevarication to be noted.
In other news:
This is starting to reach Doom of Malan'tai spirit leech proportions. Never had so much enjoyment from a thread.
No kidding! =)
Has this really been going on for 225 posts?! Someone should publish this thread because it is long enough to be a full book :p
Look let's be honest, Bean has this one, in all technicality you can have an independent character join multiple units. However, using this soon falls flat on its face as there are all sorts of complications to do with wound allocations and the way in which the units are treated (separately or not, and if they are separate then who gets hut when you shoot at them). Also very few opponents, I would imagine, would allow the game to be played this way. :eek:
So rather then have the argument again and again let's realise the reality of this situation, otherwise I'm sure some smart person who knows about programming can set up two accounts to just continually re-post the same arguments again and again. Oh, lastly the word you is not a long one, please do us the favor of using it at all times.
Tynskel
11-04-2011, 08:23 AM
Stop being so abusive.
You are one to talk.
I guess this only means that you shouldn't be abusive if you agree with the guy.
Morgan Darkstar
11-04-2011, 10:15 AM
You are one to talk.
I guess this only means that you shouldn't be abusive if you agree with the guy.
:p
I May not be free of all sin, however i don't believe I have ever been directly abusive to anyone here on the forum..... apart from to you of course :p :D
where as mr MaxKool "i am positive Its somebody's trolling account" has, calling people morons and cheaters and generally being condescending.
Tynskel
11-04-2011, 11:35 AM
hahah! well, at least that clarifies something.
MaxKool
11-08-2011, 11:20 AM
Just because I don't post constantly and without purpose does not make this a fake account. Spell my name right for one thing. 2 I've been using this handle online since before the internet.. (anyone remember c-net)
Ok Somthing I noticed in the necron codex wich may or may not be interesting to u guys.
A model with everliving dies while attached to a squad, when it makes its rez roll it comes back with the potential to be in both units. IE within 2" of 2 different squads. In this case the model has to choose wich of the units he joins and cannot be in both units.
I know this isn't the same per se, but I think again it sheds light on the fact the an IC can never be in 2 squads at once. As in the reanimation rules it doesn't say that when the chacacter is disabled it auto leaves the unit. Just that if it comes back into play in coheriancy with a 2nd unit in addition to the one it was already joined to that it must choose one and cannot ever be in both.
Just Somthing I saw while reading the codex.
Wildeybeast
11-08-2011, 04:03 PM
Just because I don't post constantly and without purpose does not make this a fake account. Spell my name right for one thing. 2 I've been using this handle online since before the internet.. (anyone remember c-net)
Ok Somthing I noticed in the necron codex wich may or may not be interesting to u guys.
A model with everliving dies while attached to a squad, when it makes its rez roll it comes back with the potential to be in both units. IE within 2" of 2 different squads. In this case the model has to choose wich of the units he joins and cannot be in both units.
I know this isn't the same per se, but I think again it sheds light on the fact the an IC can never be in 2 squads at once. As in the reanimation rules it doesn't say that when the chacacter is disabled it auto leaves the unit. Just that if it comes back into play in coheriancy with a 2nd unit in addition to the one it was already joined to that it must choose one and cannot ever be in both.
Just Somthing I saw while reading the codex.
Seriously dude, I'd let this one go, I think everyone else has given up arguing with Bean. And to save him the trouble of posting, this doesn't invalidate his point. For a start, it makes clear that he if he was already part of a unit, he rejoins that one. What you meant to post was "if the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that it is elgible to join it automatically joins one of those units (your choice)". Bean will simply say 'fine it joins one of those units this turn and then next turn he follows the IC rules for joining units and joins another one'.
Morgan Darkstar
11-08-2011, 04:16 PM
Just because I don't post constantly and without purpose does not make this a fake account. Spell my name right for one thing.
It's Fixed for Ya :p
MaxKool
11-08-2011, 07:26 PM
Personaly dont care about it, realy. Just adding info. I know bean will just say that..... cause thats what people who look for rules holes alwasy say.
I can look all day and post examples all nite of times that you COULD join a 2nd unit like bean thinks u can but rules that say "choose a unit to join". And he would still say he can do somthing that isnt disallowed by the rules... Bleh... whatever....
90% of this forum is either quiestions that are easily anwsered if you can READ a codex/rulebook or people tyying to break the game... wich is pretty easy if thats your mission in life.... sad realy...
Its like police who show people how to break into cars.... Just cause u found out somthing that breaks the game... mabye DONT share it as its not going to contribute in any positive way to the community.... just an idea...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.