Better out than in!

[Demonus]

I didn't see this referenced in the BRB so figured I would ask. Say for example, an IC is in a transport with the unit he has joined. Now the BRB says you cannot disembark and then re-embark in the same turn. We also know that for an IC to leave the unit, he must be 2+ inches away at the end of movement. So my question is this, if a transport moves Combat Speed or less, can you:

1. Disembark unit, leaving IC on board
2. Move 6"
3. Disembark IC
?

[DarkLink]

Pretty sure that's legal.

[Nabterayl]

Totally legal. As page 79 says, "They [an embarked IC and embarked unit] can even separate by disembarking at the same time, so long as they end their moves more than 2" away from each other."

[Demonus]

Cool thanks. I knew that you could move them both out at the same time and separate, but wasnt sure about the disembark, move, disembark IC aspect :)

cheers

[Nabterayl]

When you say "move 6"," do you mean the transport is moving 6", or the first disembarking unit?

[Magpie]

He's saying

Squad gets out leaving IC behind
Transport moves 6"
IC gets out.

I THINK that is legal, despite appearing a bit dodgy

[Wolfshade]

Of course if you wanted to dissembark both and the attached squad was small enough you could just dissembark on different access points.

[Magpie]

Of course if you wanted to dissembark both and the attached squad was small enough you could just dissembark on different access points.

True, you don't even have to do that tho as all you need to to is move away.

There might be times you want your IC to be up to 18" away from the squad tho' I suppose.

[Demonus]

Correct I had Kharne in a LR with some Marines. I wanted the Marines to kill a unit that was close to me, and Kharne to kill another that was about 15 or so inches away. So I could have just disembarked both and then hoped for a good assault roll with kharne, but I preferred the extra 6Inches the Transport would have given me guaranteed.

[Nabterayl]

If that's the question, then yes, that is legal, though not really for the reason I originally cited.

[SeattleDV8]

I'm going to say no, that wouldn't be correct.

While perfectly fine for both the IC and the unit to disembark at the same time, or one can disembark while the other remains embarked.

What is not ok is for the other to disembark after the vehicle moved.
That is because the 'unit' that the IC was part of has already moved.
Pg 39
An Independent Character can leave a unit duing Movement phase by moving out of unit conherency with it.

Or in this case having the rest of the unit disembark/move away.

Once the vehicle moves the IC has lost his chance to move.
He had to make that choice with the rest of the unit.

[DarkLink]

Why? If the squad moves away from the IC (by disemarking), that doesn't mean the IC has moved yet, which means he still has a chance to disembark. Since it doesn't matter whether a unit or the transport moves first or second, there's no reason to think that one could move after the other has. And there are no restrictions on multiple disembarkations, only on both embarking and disembarking in the same phase. I don't see how the rules you've quoted actually create a restriction on this.

Otherwise, by your logic I could argue that an IC attached to a squad couldn't move if the squad moved (or vise versa). One of them would have to sit still and sacrifice their movement, because the other part of their unit moved and the unit only gets one move collectively. It would be impossible for an IC to move in one direction, and the squad to move in another. You claim one would have to sit still.

[Magpie]

Nah. The rules make it pretty clear that a squad can leave the transport and the IC stay behind. That will have no effect on the Transport or the IC.

[SeattleDV8]

Sorry guys , but the IC is part of the Unit when it moves.
That means he can leave the unit by either him moving away or the unit moving away(or both).
This is allowed by the IC rules ( so no Darklink thats not what my logic would lead to).

In both cases that counts as his movement phase.
Once the transport has moved it is too late for the IC to move .
Note the rule I quoted
An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit conherency with it.
The IC counts as moving when he leaves the unit, otherwise he can't leave at all, even if he hasn't moved.
That said he has moved, you don't get two moves in the movement phase.

The vehicle rules really don't have much to do with this, it's the movement rules.

You wouldn't move the unit away from the IC, move other units then come back and move the IC.
No, you would move both the IC and the unit at the same time because they are one unit at that time.

The vehicle question just confuses the issue.
Yes, Magpie , the IC can stay behind, he doesn't get at extra move.

[Tynskel]

Your logic here is not concrete. Something moving out of coherency does not mean both units have moved.

And your example does not include all situations. I could move the unit. Then move a tank in between the unit and character, then move the character back into coherency. That's perfectly legal.

[Magpie]

The vehicle question just confuses the issue.
Yes, Magpie , the IC can stay behind, he doesn't get at extra move.

You are correct he doesn't get an extra move, just his normal move.

The rule for IC's and transports (Page 79) make it quite clear that a unit disembarking without the IC is an exception to the normal IC join/leave rules.
The IC is NOT part of the unit when it disembarks.

It is only when an IC joins a unit that the unit can no longer move, nothing restricts either moving when an IC leaves.

[Nabterayl]

I ... think DV8 has a legitimate point here. With the benefit of his analysis, here's mine:

The joining and leaving rules are asymmetric - while you can only join at the end of the Movement phase, you leave by moving out of coherency - that is, in the middle of the Movement phase. If that was all there was to it, I think we would all agree that both halves of the combined unit must make their moves simultaneously.

However, page 79 tells us that a combined unit can "separate by either the unit or the Independent Character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board."

There are two ways to read this. One is to read it as saying that if the unit leaves and the Independent Character does nothing (thus, de facto, remaining on board), the two have "separated" and the IC is treated as his own unit from that instant forward.

The other is to read it as saying that if the unit leaves and the Independent Character forgoes his movement (thus, de facto, remaining on board), the two have "separated" and the IC is treated as his own unit from that instant forward, but he has also taken his move for that Movement phase.

While both of these two readings are correct with respect to page 79 itself, which is the best in the context of the rest of the rules? Can we make such a judgment? I think that we can, in light of the fact that page 39 tells us that "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it" - that is, joining is something the IC has to do.

Let us now ask whether page 39 is a general rule to page 79's advanced rule, vice versa, or whether neither rule is advanced with respect to the other. Clearly, page 39 is not the advanced rule to page 79's general rule, so we can throw that possibility out. We are left with page 79 being an advanced rule (i.e., partial exception to) page 39, or both being stand-alone rules. Since page 79 discusses joining and leaving, which is first discussed in a less specific way on page 39 (i.e., page 39, by its terms, applies both to ICs joined in a vehicle and ICs joined outside of a vehicle), I think it is most natural to read these two rules not as independent stand-alones but as page 39 articulating a general rule to which page 79 gives us a partial exception.

That relationship established, which of the two readings of page 79 should we prefer?

I submit that, because it is most natural to read the two as related, we should prefer the reading of page 79 in which separating is an act on the IC's part. The first reading, which I had previously advocated for, makes separating passive on the part of the IC - the squad leaves, and the IC separates without having to do anything at all. The second reading makes separating active with respect to the IC - the squad leaves, but the separation actually occurs when the IC chooses to remain on board - that is his move, as the general rule tells us must be taken in order to separate.

For these reasons, presently leaning in favor of DV8's interpretation: Either can leave and the other remain, both can leave simultaneously and go their separate ways, but everybody has to choose to move, or not move, at the same time.

[Magpie]

That might work but it is possible that if out side of a vehicle the IC can move away from the squad, you can then move every other unit in your army and come back to the squad later. There is no penalty for that.

I don't see why that should change in the vehicle scenario where the only change to the base rule is the ability for the Squad to leave the IC.

[SeattleDV8]

Except for the small problem that it doesn't work that for a unit with an IC outside a vehicle.
The IC is part of the unit when he moves away, the unit has to either move or not at the same time.
This is no different, the timing is the same.

In order for the IC to leave the unit he must move out off coherency (either him or the unit) in both cases that means the movement phase is done for the unit and the IC.

[Nabterayl]

For the record, I concur about that point and always have. I've never understood the rules to allow you to move either a squad or an IC joined to that squad, move somebody else, and then go back and move the other half of the formerly combined unit.

[Magpie]

In order for the IC to leave the unit he must move out off coherency (either him or the unit) in both cases that means the movement phase is done for the unit and the IC.

That's not right.

If an IC leaves a unit, the unit is still able to move. It's only when an IC joins a unit that both their movement phases are over.

[SeattleDV8]

In the Movement phase when you decide to move you have one unit which is a IC and a unit.
They can both move, but they have to move at the same time because they are one unit.
It is allowed for models in a unit not to move.
If the IC moves and the unit doesn't at that time they have elected not to move, or the other way around, the unit moves and the IC doesn't.
Yes they become two units at the end of their movement (note their movement not the end of the phase) ,but they were a single unit when moves are declared.

Move now or sit where you were.

It's a timing issue, once their movement is done they don't get a second chance.

[Magpie]

The rule says you leave DURING the movement phase by moving out of coherency. The moment the IC moves away it is no longer part of the unit.
There is nothing that stops the unit moving off on its own way.

[Nabterayl]

Sure, but why is the IC allowed to move at all? Not because you chose the IC to move. You can only choose units to move, and the IC isn't a unit when joined. In order to move any models, you need to first choose to move the unit those models belong to. Then you can choose to move, or not move, each model in that unit, and once you have done so you can't move those models later that same Movement phase.

[Magpie]

But the rule says that the IC leaves the unit by moving out of coherency with it.
Not being out of coherency when his move finishes, nor by just simply being out of coherency but by moving out of coherency.

For example the IC has not left the unit if casualties make him out of coherency, it is the act of moving, from beginning to end that makes him leave the unit.

If he moves with the intention of leaving coherency then at that very moment he is no longer part of the squad.

[Daemonette666]

A silly point, but if an independent character attached to a unit decides not to move (has not moved yet), and the rest of the unit moves out of coherency, then that breaks the wording for the whole joining and leaving units. Why, he did not move, the unit moved.

You could have a unit leave a vehicle say a landraider and get ready to assault some enemy squad. The IC stays on board because you want him to get closer to another unit more suited to his close combat weapons (for next turns assault), and then after the vehicle moves to say deny a unit of Tau supporting Over watch fire, a second unit could board the Landraider and the IC would automatically join onto it.

GW has had a very poor reputation for checking the wording in their codexes and rule books. Hence the massive amount of Errata and FAQs they put out. All companies have to put out Errata and FAQs, as no company gets it right, and it takes a while to get the kinks out, and make the rules so people know what is intended. GW is just gotten worse at doing it first time a lot more lately. They are not the only ones, but they are a Huge company, and have the resources to play test and check things better.

I can see both points of view, but my first point still is valid. An IC has not left a unit that has moved out of coherency with him/her if the IC has not moved yet, and is over 2" from the nearest model in the unit.

The rules say that all models in a unit must move to stay in coherency, but what if you do not want to move the IC away from their little hidie-hole in the middle of heavy cover, and you want the unit to position itself to assault the enemy. The IC might be standing behind an AGL manning a Quad Gun, and you might even move another unit into coherency with the IC after the first unit has moved. The rules say he now automatically joins the second unit.

As you can see the rules contradict themselves all the time, and logic and common sense has to play some part in how we move our little metal, plastic and resin toy soldiers about.

If in doubt roll the dice 50% chance it goes your way.

[Magpie]

A silly point, but if an independent character attached to a unit decides not to move (has not moved yet), and the rest of the unit moves out of coherency, then that breaks the wording for the whole joining and leaving units. Why, he did not move, the unit moved.

You can't do that tho' for the reasons you mention it must be the IC who leaves the unit. The only exception to this is the case of vehicles


The IC might be standing behind an AGL manning a Quad Gun, and you might even move another unit into coherency with the IC after the first unit has moved. The rules say he now automatically joins the second unit.

No they don't. The only way an IC can join a unit (out of a vehicle) is for the IC to move to coherency with the unit at the end of their move. If they move to him, he has not joined the unit.

[Daemonette666]

So in real life an officer can not order a squad to move to the top of the hill and call up another squad waiting at the base of the hill. Who ever heard of an officer taking the time to move to join units. In my experience, they get the unit to move to them. The unit would move up pepper-potting, or using fire and movement, while the officer sits in cover shouting at everyone.

I would have to move the second unit up and mingle them close to the unit with the IC, then move the IC to the other side of the Quadgun, and then move the unit first away from him. That is a messy procedure, and it is easier to just move them as I mentioned in my first post.

In friendly games with my mates, we do this all the time, as we value our little painted miniatures, and want to avoid knocking them off the table, or damaging them. It is easier to do this than other methods of trying to get another unit close enough to have the IC join onto it (the first unit gets in the way too much).

[Magpie]

Making house rules from your take on the IRL situation is fine mate, happens all the time.

I'm sure the rules in the BRB are the way they are mainly to make sure there is no room for cheating and so that everyone is clear on what is happening.

[Tynskel]

For the record, I concur about that point and always have. I've never understood the rules to allow you to move either a squad or an IC joined to that squad, move somebody else, and then go back and move the other half of the formerly combined unit.

The rules never said you could not do this. Sometimes what you are planning takes some finesse. Sometimes you move the unit away from the character. Then you need to roll difficult terrain for a second unit, then you move the IC to the appropriate position to join the second unit.

[Nabterayl]

Daemonette, you've hit on the hypothetical that has always made me think a combined unit must all move at once. Consider a regular old squad of space marines. Their Movement phase comes up. Their player declares that they are remaining stationary. Although their position has not changed, they have still moved in the sense that they have taken their move - after all, strictly speaking, page 10 does require us to explicitly declare when a model is remaining stationary.

As you say, the separating rule requires the IC to do "move" out of coherency. If it is declared to be remaining stationary but the unit ends its move such that the IC is not in coherency with the rest of it, the IC has still moved - it took its move as part of the unit. It was one of the models in that unit (probably the only model) declared to be remaining stationary, but it still took its move.

EDIT:
The rules never said you could not do this. Sometimes what you are planning takes some finesse. Sometimes you move the unit away from the character. Then you need to roll difficult terrain for a second unit, then you move the IC to the appropriate position to join the second unit.

I think the prohibition falls out of the fact that you cannot move part of a unit. Not everybody in the unit has to change position, but if you've moved one model in the unit, no model in the unit is allowed to move again.

To keep it simple, let's suppose the unit here is composed of only two models: Marneus Calgar and Ortan Cassius. They are presently joined to each other, comprising Unit Old Boys' Club.

The game comes around to the Movement phase of OBC's player. That player declares that he is going to move Old Boys' Club. Page 10 requires him to "finish its move before [he] start[s] to move another unit."

Calgar moves 6" away from Cassius. At this point, the two are still one unit, because coherency is checked at the end of the entire unit's move. The opposing player then points to Cassius and says, "What is he doing?"

There are only two answers the rules allow. Cassius can move from his current position. His player is also allowed to "decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn" (page 10). Thus, OBC's player can either answer that Cassius is moving, or declare that he is not going to move this turn. Either is fine, and either could result in Cassius not being in coherency with Calgar and thus the Old Boys' Club going its separate ways. But Cassius' player cannot answer, "He's holding his turn until later." Unit OBC still exists. Its movement is not finished, according to page 10, until Cassius either moves or his player declares that he is not moving this turn.

[Tynskel]

I disagree with that interpretation.

I have yet to declare what I am doing with Cassius. There is nothing in the rulebook that says that you must declare what the IC is doing while the rest of the unit is moving, the only thing the rulebook states is that you must declare what the IC is doing when you activate the IC. Every unit must be 'activated'.

In the movement phase, the IC acts as part of a unit the instant you move the IC into coherency of a unit, at the END of the movement phase. Throughout the movement phase, for all intents and purposes, the IC is not part of a unit.

The rules allow you to move the IC with the unit for the purposes of convenience. For example, the IC is in the middle of the unit, if you didn't move everything together, the units would have trouble moving.

Here's an example. I move my IC so that it 2" away from a unit. Then I move the unit away from the IC. Are you telling me that it illegal–by your interpretation it is. However, I do believe the rulebook does not care until the end of the movement phase.


The real point of all of this: no unit can move more than once in the movement phase. As long as you do that, you are following the rules fine.


Soooo.... unit hopping out, transport moving, then IC hopping out is perfectly fine. Each unit has only moved once, and every single model has been declared what it is doing.

hellz, I could go crazy and have a Stormraven do Skies of Fury 11 times:
9 Priests, and two HQs, each one jumping out at a different spot along the path of the stormraven.

[Nabterayl]

the only thing the rulebook states is that you must declare what the IC is doing when you activate the IC. Every unit must be 'activated'.
I quite agree that every unit must be "activated." However, as page 39 reminds us, an IC who is joined to a unit "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes." When the IC is joined to a unit, he is no longer a unit in his own right. You thus cannot choose to activate the IC alone, or the squad he has joined alone. You must activate all of them at once, because they are all part of the same unit.


Here's an example. I move my IC so that it 2" away from a unit. Then I move the unit away from the IC. Are you telling me that it illegal–by your interpretation it is.
If you do so as part of two separate moves, yes. However, there is nothing stopping you from activating the unit (IC + squad) and, as part of moving that unit, move the IC in one direction and the rest of the unit in another.

[Magpie]

As you say, the separating rule requires the IC to do "move" out of coherency. If it is declared to be remaining stationary but the unit ends its move such that the IC is not in coherency with the rest of it, the IC has still moved - it took its move as part of the unit. It was one of the models in that unit (probably the only model) declared to be remaining stationary, but it still took its move.


I don't go with that at all. The rule says very specifically that the IC must be the one who moves out of coherency. You -might- be able to do it by simply saying "This guy is leaving the squad" and have the unit move away but that isn't the letter of the law. Pretty sure most ppl would allow that tho'.


In the movement phase, the IC acts as part of a unit the instant you move the IC into coherency of a unit, at the END of the movement phase. Throughout the movement phase, for all intents and purposes, the IC is not part of a unit.

I agree with this, to a point. It is at the end of the Unit's movement phase not the end of the entire movement phase that the IC is considered part of it.

That is what leads to my belief that it is the instant that the IC beings to move away, or even when it makes the declaration "This guy is leaving the squad" he is no longer part of the unit.

As an aside. If an IC makes to leave a unit of 3 and then dies to a difficult terrain test, would the squad of 3 take a moral check? I'd say no.

[Nabterayl]

I'd say yes. You only check coherency, according to page 11, at the end of the unit's Movement phase. Since page 39 says that the IC separates by moving out of coherency with the joined unit, an IC can only separate at the end of the unit's Movement phase. If it dies before the parent unit has finished moving, it never separated.

[Magpie]

You only check coherency, according to page 11, at the end of the unit's Movement phase.

That is not correct. Coherency is checked and maintained throughout the turn, charges and regrouping for example. You are also required to be in coherency in the shooting phase as you must run if you are found to be out of coherency.

The is nothing to suggest that the requirement to be in coherency at the end of the movement phase restricts tests for coherency to the the end of the movement phase.

[Nabterayl]

Mmmm, you're correct about that; my apologies. What I meant to say is that coherency is not checked until the end of a move. For instance, if I have a squad of four fire warriors, and I move one model 6" away from the others, I have not yet broken coherency - one of the four models is no longer within 2" of the others, but that's fine, because I haven't finished the unit's move. If that one model is an independent character, the same rule applies. As page 11 says, the coherency rule is that "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"" (emphasis mine).

[Magpie]

That would only apply if the IC was remaining with the unit.

It is a given that for the sake of practicality the models of a unit must be moved out of coherency while moving, but from a rules perspective they actually remain in coherency even while moving, it's just that only an octopus could move the mini's correctly or we'd need WHFB style movement trays.

The rule for an IC is a specific exception to that as all they have to do is move out of coherency and they have left.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think it's true that from a rules perspective they remain in coherency even while moving. What citation do you have for that? Page 11 says that coherency is a concept that applies "once a unit has finished moving."

[Magpie]

The rule says that they must be in coherency at the end of the move but other references throughout the BRB say "must maintain coherency"

There are a number of rules, passengers bailing out of wrecked flyers for example, that eliminate models is they cannot be placed in coherency.
Tank Shock is similar.
Leaping down requires you to remain in coherency.

[Nabterayl]

Hmmm ... so suppose the remaining two men in a unit are in line abreast, 2" apart from each other. They begin their turn facing a rectangle of Dangerous Terrain that is 4" long. You would contend that they cannot split, one going around the left and one going around the right, ending their respective moves on the other side of the Dangerous Terrain 2" apart, because doing so is not maintaining coherency?

[Magpie]

There is pretty much no situation on the table where that would ever actually happen, all you have to do is follow behind or move closer than 2" from the other guy but I believe that to be the underlying principle.

[Daemonette666]

Unless the enemy has some special weapon that kills your troops in "your" shooting phase (or maybe your own Blast weapons scattering), or there is some mishap like a dangerous terrain test, then there is nothing that would cause a unit to have models out of coherency in your turn.

Close combat ignores unit coherency as long as the combat is ongoing, as models have to move to reach the next available enemy. At the end of the combat you consolidate, and try to get into coherency then.

You will find that you have to only move models in a unit that you intend to sit in terrain in their movement phase, and they will be able to shoot normally. Since shooting is on a model by model basis, then it should only effect those models that are out of coherency only anyway.

On page 11 it supports the facts mentioned by others previously that a unit must move in their turn to get into coherency. Those models that stand still are treated as having not moved (discussed on page 13 Moving and shooting). If the unit has to move some models to get coherency by running in the shooting phase, the running rule penalizes the whole unit, and stops them all from shooting (discussed on page 14). I understand this is to make it simpler to work things out but it is a pain when you want to shoot at the enemy, and keep missing out because of casualties they keep inflicting.

" I moved this model, and this model, and this model only. The rest can shoot." mark them with a dice, then someone picks the dice up when rolling, and you forget which ones have moved. An argument then ensues. Do that with a couple units, and you will soon lose track which ones had moved, or run.

As to keeping unit coherency when moving, I simply move the models forward, and have them move individually around terrain making sure they are 2" or less apart once I have moved them all. This happens a lot when there are small things like bits of razor wire spread out in small lines, or small boulders, etc. As long as they end up with all models in coherency, I find no problems with that. It also makes the movement phase go quicker. You may or may not have to roll for difficult terrain when moving doing this, but usually only when a model can not go around a feature such as a rocky ledge, a long wall, woods, ruins, etc and maintain coherency. Charging is about the only thing where it is specific about terrain slowing down movement as it says the models move directly in a straight line towards the enemy, and have to roll an extra dice and remove the highest if any models direct path has terrain in their way. Running and routing does not slow movement, though it may cause dangerous terrain tests though.

[Nabterayl]

As to keeping unit coherency when moving, I simply move the models forward, and have them move individually around terrain making sure they are 2" or less apart once I have moved them all. This happens a lot when there are small things like bits of razor wire spread out in small lines, or small boulders, etc. As long as they end up with all models in coherency, I find no problems with that.
That's exactly the question Magpie and I have been discussing. Do you only have to end up with all models in coherency? Is that "maintaining coherency" within the meaning of the rules? Or do you have to move your models such that, if they were all moving simultaneously, at no point in its movement would any model be more than 2" away from any other? Is that what the rulebook means when it says "maintain coherency?" As you say, when there are small bits of terrain on the battlefield, the distinction could matter.

I've always understood "maintain coherency" to mean the former, but Magpie understands it to be the latter. If we knew which one is correct, we could easily answer the questions we've been having about ICs separating. I think this is one question where the text doesn't give us what we need, though. I certainly see the merits of Magpie's view, but I can't see any way to prove him or me wrong.

[SeattleDV8]

There are only two times the coherency matters, at the start of a move and at the end.
Magpies idea that a unit must be in coherency at all times fails when you consider infantry models move 6".
Unless you move all of the models at the same time, a normal unit will be out of coherency when moving.
In the Movement phase if you start out of coherency you must try to regain it, you check this at the end of the units move.
There is nothing in the Run rules about maintaining coherency, although if you were still out at the end of your movement phase you will have to Run the regain it. Strangely it doesn't even say 'follow the movement rules' like the Jet Packs Thrust move.
In the assault phase you check each model for coherency, after the first, with a model that has already moved, at the end of the models move.
Fall Back moves must be 'directly towards the their own table edge' the only mention of coherency is if something is blocking the shortest path. In is implied that you follow the movement rules with the Fall Back changes.
The restriction on Regrouping when out of coherency was a 5th ed. rule that has been dropped.

It seems clear to me, you check at the start of the Movement Phase and again at the end of the unit's move as per pg. 11
Assault phase moves (Jet Packs) follow the Movement rules.
Assaults only check at the end of each models charge.
How you get there is unimportant, it's where you are at the end.
In your example it is perfectly fine to move around both sides of the terrain as long as you end your move in coherency.

[Tynskel]

I still disagree on the interpretation of activating an IC that is attached to a unit. The IC has its own set of rules that make the IC 'super' unit versus others. The real clear consistent rule that the Rulebook has is that you must declare what every unit, and specifically every model, is doing, and that no model can be moved twice.

The simple act of moving models away from the IC does not inherently mean that the IC will be stationary.

[Nabterayl]

The simple act of moving models away from the IC and not simultaneously moving the IC does not inherently mean that the IC will be stationary.
Just to be clear, is that what you meant?

[Tynskel]

I mean exactly that. Moving the unit away from the IC does not mean that the IC has been activated. You have not declared what the IC is doing.

[Nabterayl]

So ... why do you think that? What are the rules you are thinking of that carve out an exception to the IC being "part of the unit for all rules purposes," as page 39 says?

[Tynskel]

It is only part of the rules for all purposes when you declare it so.

[Nabterayl]

I ... don't understand that statement. Do you mean "you" as in me, Nabterayl? Or do you mean that as a player, one can simply declare when an IC joined to a unit is, notwithstanding being joined to that unit, "part of the unit for all rules purposes?"

[Tynskel]

the player.
Yes, because when you move the IC with the unit, it is 'part of the unit for all rules and purposes', however, if you move the unit away, the IC is no longer subject to 'part of the unit for all rules and purposes'.

[Nabterayl]

I understand that, but you're essentially claiming that before you move the unit away, you can declare it to be separated. While the two are still one unit "for all rules purposes," you activate the unit. You can't choose to activate only part of the unit (e.g., everybody but the IC) any more than you can choose to activate everybody but the sergeant.

Except that you seem to claim that you can, because "The IC has its own set of rules that make the IC 'super' unit versus others." I still don't see what those are, though.

[Tynskel]

Because the IC *can* operate on its own.
By moving the unit away from the IC, the IC has never been activated. Even *if* you move the unit and maintain coherency, the IC has never been activated, because you can *choose* to move the IC away. The point is, the IC, even while attached, is still independent. While a part of the unit, a distinction you must declare, the IC is part of the unit "for all rules purposes".

[Nabterayl]

You infer, from the fact that an IC can be its own unit, that an IC that is not its own unit need not be activated when the rest of its unit is?

I do not see how that inference follows.

If I activate a tactical squad, I need to activate the sergeant at the same time as I activate the rest of the unit. The reason for that is not because the sergeant cannot separate from the rest of the unit. The reason is that the sergeant is part of the unit I just activated. An IC that is, at the time of activation, part of the unit, is no different.

[Tynskel]

the act that it can be, makes it unique in its activation within the rules. If you choose the IC to be part of the unit, you must be explicit. At that point, is part of the unit 'for all rules purposes'.

If you move the unit away from the IC, the IC is not part of the unit anymore, thus not part of the unit 'for all rules purposes'. You have to move the IC with the unit (thus activating the IC) to maintain being part of the unit 'for all rules purposes'.

The point is: you always have a choice *when* to activate the IC.

[Nabterayl]

But you can't choose whether the IC is part of the unit.* Either it is (because it's in coherency with the unit) or it isn't. If you have an IC in coherency with another squad, they're all part of the same unit whether you want them to be or not. So at the moment of activation, there is only one unit available to activate. Why does the fact that, under other circumstances, the IC would be its own unit change that?

* Unless it's in coherency with more than one unit, but that doesn't change my point or question.

[Tynskel]

But you can't choose whether the IC is part of the unit. Either it is (because it's in coherency with the unit) or it isn't. If you have an IC in coherency with another squad, they're all part of the same unit whether you want them to be or not. So at the moment of activation, there is only one unit available to activate. Why does the fact that, under other circumstances, the IC would be its own unit change that?

No. That's not true. You have to activate the IC and declare that it is part of the unit. The only time that you do not have this choice is if the IC falling back, because you do not have control over the IC.

You always have to declare what the IC is doing, just as you have to declare what every single model is doing.

[SeattleDV8]

Nonsense, the IC is part of the unit until the end of the unit's move.
Thats when the check is make, he becomes a seperate unit after the move.
Which means, even if he hasn't moved his chance to move is done.

[Tynskel]

No. You have to declare that you are activating the IC. If you move the unit away from the IC, you have not declared what the IC is doing. You have to physically state whether the IC is stationary or moving. Moving the unit away from the IC is neither, hence not activated.

Example, unit moves except for one model: you must declare if that model is stationary or not.

All models must be physically declared.

The player decides the order of activation/declaration.

[Nabterayl]

No. That's not true. You have to activate the IC and declare that it is part of the unit.
Despite the fact that it is, at the time you activate the rest of the unit, part of that unit? You can't find an actual citation for that, can you?

Assuming you can't ... how does it follow, as a logical matter, that the fact that the IC could become a different unit mean that it must be treated as a different unit at a time when it is "for all rules purposes" not a different unit? You clearly see some sort of logical connection there that I just don't see.

[40kGamer]

But you can't choose whether the IC is part of the unit.* Either it is (because it's in coherency with the unit) or it isn't. If you have an IC in coherency with another squad, they're all part of the same unit whether you want them to be or not. So at the moment of activation, there is only one unit available to activate. Why does the fact that, under other circumstances, the IC would be its own unit change that?

* Unless it's in coherency with more than one unit, but that doesn't change my point or question.

So if I'm following the full line of reasoning an IC joined to a unit embarked in a transport has the following options before or after the transport completes it's movement (within movement restrictions).

1. Disembark and remain joined to the unit
2. Disembark with the unit but separate from the unit by moving over 2" away
3. Separate from the unit and disembark alone (unit must stay in vehicle)
4. Stay in the vehicle alone as the unit disembarks

Is this right? :confused:

[Nabterayl]

Well ... if you listen to me, yes, those are your only four options. Obviously, as you can see, not everybody is persuaded that I am right.

[Tynskel]

Despite the fact that it is, at the time you activate the rest of the unit, part of that unit? You can't find an actual citation for that, can you?

Assuming you can't ... how does it follow, as a logical matter, that the fact that the IC could become a different unit mean that it must be treated as a different unit at a time when it is "for all rules purposes" not a different unit? You clearly see some sort of logical connection there that I just don't see.

No, because you have to declare that you are activating the IC, at which point, the IC is part of the unit 'for all rules purposes'.

If you do not activate the IC, and you move the unit away, the IC is no longer subject to those rules.
Furthermore, lets say you don't move the unit. The IC must be activated and declared part of the unit, or it *must* move away from the unit.

Either way, the player is the one that has the choice.

[40kGamer]

Well ... if you listen to me, yes, those are your only four options. Obviously, as you can see, not everybody is persuaded that I am right.

Fair enough. ;) I'll give this another read tonight. On the surface it seems the disembark one, move the transport, then disembark the other might be ok but it's honestly not something I've ever considered using. I can see where it could come in really handy in a contesting (or assaulting 2 units) situation to boost the movement of the unit or IC respectively which after writing it out seems off...

[SeattleDV8]

Page 10
Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit

The IC is part of the unit when the unit makes its move.

[Nabterayl]

No, because you have to declare that you are activating the IC, at which point, the IC is part of the unit 'for all rules purposes'.
Wait, let me stop you there. I don't think that's an accurate statement. Page 39 says, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes." Do you agree that an Independent Character that ends its Movement phase 2" away from a friendly unit must join that unit unless it is either a vehicle unit or a non-Independent Character unit that always consists of a single model?

Unless you disagree with that (and if you do, I suppose we are moving the conversation forward), then the IC is part of the unit simply by virtue of how it starts its turn (or, more accurately, how it ended its last Movement phase). It does not become part of the unit - that is, does not join the unit - because you decide to have it join at the start of its Movement phase.

[40kGamer]

Page 10

The IC is part of the unit when the unit makes its move.

What about this scenario. An IC leaves a unit by moving out of unit coherency... so can an IC activate, disembark and then the transport makes it's move and the unit disembarks? or are you thinking when the IC activates the entire unit must complete all of its movement?

[SeattleDV8]

The IC and the unit is still a single Unit until the end of the unit's move.
If any part of the Unit moves or not, either the IC or the unit, once you have another unit move they can no longer move.
The Unit's move is over.

[Tynskel]

Wait, let me stop you there. I don't think that's an accurate statement. Page 39 says, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes." Do you agree that an Independent Character that ends its Movement phase 2" away from a friendly unit must join that unit unless it is either a vehicle unit or a non-Independent Character unit that always consists of a single model?

Unless you disagree with that (and if you do, I suppose we are moving the conversation forward), then the IC is part of the unit simply by virtue of how it starts its turn (or, more accurately, how it ended its last Movement phase). It does not become part of the unit - that is, does not join the unit - because you decide to have it join at the start of its Movement phase.

No to the first statement. If the unit that was within 2" then moves away, the IC technically never joined the unit. Second statement: The rules do not explicitly state that the IC is *always* part of the unit. It just states that when it *is* part of the unit, the IC is subject to all the rules for units.

You must declare the IC as part of the unit. If you do not declare the IC is part of the unit, it is not subject to the unit's movement (ie rules for that unit).

Everything, again, must be explicit.

[40kGamer]

The IC and the unit is still a single Unit until the end of the unit's move.
If any part of the Unit moves or not, either the IC or the unit, once you have another unit move they can no longer move.
The Unit's move is over.

That seems completely reasonable from a gameplay perspective as it could get confusing to move an IC away from a unit, move a bunch of other stuff, then come back and move the unit the IC was initially attached to... just never seen this come up in a game before.

[Tynskel]

That seems completely reasonable from a gameplay perspective as it could get confusing to move an IC away from a unit, move a bunch of other stuff, then come back and move the unit the IC was initially attached to... just never seen this come up in a game before.

I don't understand what is confusing about it. If you or your opponent are having trouble keeping track of who moved when, I suggest using markers to show what has been activated or not.

I play with markers, anyhow, because otherwise I have a tendency to forget to shoot a unit, because I get excited about the assault phase.

[40kGamer]

I play with markers, anyhow, because otherwise I have a tendency to forget to shoot a unit, because I get excited about the assault phase.

Been there and done that... way too often.. Definitely going to reread these sections tonight as to the sequencing of events for this. Seems like a timing of when things happen issue like IC's giving units infiltrate in deployment.

[Tynskel]

Been there and done that... way too often.. Definitely going to reread these sections tonight as to the sequencing of events for this. Seems like a timing of when things happen issue like IC's giving units infiltrate in deployment.

See that's a bunch of bunk. If an IC has the ability to grant a unit Infiltrate, then simply put the IC with a unit and infiltrate them. It is clearly a Codex Rule overriding the normal deployment rules.

[40kGamer]

See that's a bunch of bunk. If an IC has the ability to grant a unit Infiltrate, then simply put the IC with a unit and infiltrate them. It is clearly a Codex Rule overriding the normal deployment rules.

I agree that IC's should grant infiltrate to units they join... This is far from universally accepted though.

[Tynskel]

I agree that IC's should grant infiltrate to units they join... This is far from universally accepted though.

Oh, I didn't say that. I said if the rule states that it convey's to the squad, then it ignores the normal rules.

[Magpie]

Close combat ignores unit coherency as long as the combat is ongoing, as models have to move to reach the next available enemy. At the end of the combat you consolidate, and try to get into coherency then.

Lets be very clear that this is not the case. Coherency must be maintained through the charge and pile in moves, if a model is in a position where it can pile in and be out of coherency but in base contact with an enemy then it CANNOT make that pile in move.


There are only two times the coherency matters, at the start of a move and at the end.
Magpies idea that a unit must be in coherency at all times fails when you consider infantry models move 6".
Unless you move all of the models at the same time, a normal unit will be out of coherency when moving.
In the Movement phase if you start out of coherency you must try to regain it, you check this at the end of the units move.

If you read what I said before, I believe this to be a specific "enabling" procedure because like you say it simply isn't practical to move all you models at once.

Page 10 "If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just before you start moving the other models of that unit. Remember that models must still maintain unit coherency."

"When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency"

They must maintain and remain in coherency, which as I see it means they can never leave coherency, beyond the allowance made fro practicalities.

Run doesn't specifically mention coherency but the coherency rules require you to use a run to regain coherency so I think that pretty much covers it.

[SeattleDV8]

So you have to be in coherency except where where it causes trouble with your argument?

Again page 11
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"

You check at the start of movement and the end, 'once they have finished moving'.
Thats it, very simple.
How they get there is unimportant, only that at the end of their move they are in coherency.


Lets be very clear that this is not the case. Coherency must be maintained through the charge and pile in moves, if a model is in a position where it can pile in and be out of coherency but in base contact with an enemy then it CANNOT make that pile in move.

Thats true only for the initial charge, Pile In has no requirement for coherency at all, you must get into base contact with an enemy or as close as possible.

[Allen Broussard]

If someone tried to give me bunk about my IC having counted as having ALREADY moved when the unit he was with diseml barked, i would simply tell them he had already detatched from them when he was inside the transport.

[Nabterayl]

Would you do the same if you disembarked the rest of the unit, moved the transport 6", moved the rest of your army, and then attempted to disembark the IC?

[Magpie]

So you have to be in coherency except where where it causes trouble with your argument?

No you have to be in coherency everywhere unless you are specifically exempted from doing so, which the movement rule allows. If something halts a unit before it has completed it's move, Coteaz' "I've been expecting you" for example the unit must halt in coherency while that is resolved.


Thats true only for the initial charge, Pile In has no requirement for coherency at all, you must get into base contact with an enemy or as close as possible.

Read your book mate

Under Charging on Page 21
"A charging model must end its charge move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved."

Under Pile In on page 23
"These moves follow the same rules as moving charging models,"

There is no exception made for a model to pile in (pile out?) out of coherency.

[Tynskel]

Would you do the same if you disembarked the rest of the unit, moved the transport 6", moved the rest of your army, and then attempted to disembark the IC?

There's nothing wrong with this: You can do this with Combat Squads!!!! WHY ARE IC's ANY DIFFERENT!!!! ICs are just another unit with special rules that allow them to join squads.

That's it.

[Nabterayl]

The objection I have is that two combat squads in a transport are still two units, even while they are both in the transport. They don't become one unit just because they're in the same transport. An IC and a combat squad in a transport do become one unit, whether the owning player wants them to or not. That's the difference. You haven't convinced me that the Independent Character rule offers an exception to the rule that whenever you pick a unit to move, every model in that unit must move or be declared to be remaining stationary for the turn before you're allowed to pick another unit to move.

[Tynskel]

Irrelevant, the rules allow ICs to act independently or in Units. It is up to the player to decide In the Movement Phase whether or not the IC is joined to a unit or not. It doesn't matter when, it doesn't matter how, as long as the IC does not move twice, and any other unit doesn't move twice.

The point is the unit disembarks, the IC becomes its own unit, instantaneously. Just like if the unit moves away, the IC reverts back to its individual status, instantaneously. You have to activate the IC to determine what it is doing. There's nothing in the rules that suggest otherwise. 'all purposes of the rules' are only referring to when you have decided for the IC to be apart of a unit.

[Magpie]

I agree that Combat Squads doesn't really help the case but well as I said before, I believe the instant of movement or the statement of intent is enough to divorce the IC from the squad.

[Nabterayl]

Magpie, the more I think about this, the more I feel like our ... not-agreement* is not actually relevant. The sticking point for me is the fact that when you decide to move a unit that contains an IC - but before anybody has moved - you need to move the whole unit, and at that point, the whole unit includes the IC.

Do you disagree? I feel like you've strengthened your statement - now you think (apparently with Tynskel, I think ...?) that an IC can be divorced from his unit at the instant of activation, notwithstanding the fact that he is still in unit coherency, simply because the owning player is going to move the unit such that he is out of coherency?

* I don't precisely disagree with your interpretation of coherency. I just don't think the text actually forecloses either of our interpretations.

[Nabterayl]

Irrelevant, the rules allow ICs to act independently or in Units. It is up to the player to decide In the Movement Phase whether or not the IC is joined to a unit or not.
You contend, for instance, that if I have a unit of ten models in base contact, and an IC in base contact with that unit of 10, and no other friendly units on the board, that I can simply decide in the Movement phase whether or not the IC is joined to that unit?

[Tynskel]

There's nothing in the rules that says that the IC, once it joins a squad, cannot do anything but be a part of the squad. The act of moving the IC away from the squad is the same act of moving the squad away from the IC.
It is in the exact same reference frame.

[Magpie]

You contend, for instance, that if I have a unit of ten models in base contact, and an IC in base contact with that unit of 10, and no other friendly units on the board, that I can simply decide in the Movement phase whether or not the IC is joined to that unit?

Yes because whether an IC is part of a unit is often determined by a statement of intent.

"by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined."

"If the Independent 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."

It also comes back to the mechanism for leaving, by moving out of coherency not "ending out of" or "being out of", "moving out of".

As we have previously established the members of a unit move out of coherency as a normal part of a normal move so by the RAW an IC is always leaving a unit and rejoining, with all the problems that causes.

So the only way through that that I see is the statement of intent that "this guy is leaving the unit".

[Tynskel]

You contend, for instance, that if I have a unit of ten models in base contact, and an IC in base contact with that unit of 10, and no other friendly units on the board, that I can simply decide in the Movement phase whether or not the IC is joined to that unit?

The rules state that if you are within 2" of the unit at the end of the phase, the IC is defaulted joined the squad. There's nothing in the rules about the beginning of the phase.

Sooooo.... if you don't move the unit, or the IC, then you are inherently declaring the IC is joined to the unit.

Again, the action is on the player to decide, not the game mechanics.

[SeattleDV8]

Read it your self, you claimed that a unit that is piling in First must follow the coherency rules.
That is false.
Page 23
First, any models Pile in if this will bring them into base contact with an enemy.
Second, any models Pile In if this will bring them to within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy.
Any remaining models that are not in base contact with one or more enemy models and have yet to Pile In must now do so,and attempt to get as close as possible to one or more of the enemy units locked in this combat

Units in CC must move as close as possible to the enemy, yes they use the movement rules, but coherency is over-ruled by the special rules of Pile In.
There is an exception in the rules you didn't quote.

I've already quoted and agreed that the initial charge has this wording, which you quoted from me.

I have no idea what you think Coteaz's rule has to do with this.
GK Codex Page 45

If an enemy unit arrives from reserves within 12" of Coteaz and within his line of sight, Coteaz and his unit can make an out-of sequence shooting attack against it.
Thats a total red herring and has nothing to do with this discussion.

He shoots at the unit when it arrives... thats it,even the FAQs state that.


Ok Tynskel, it does say that an IC can only leave a Unit in the Movement phase "by moving out of coherency with it"
Not at the start, not declaring it, but moving the model (or the units models) out of coherency, which is checked 'at the end of the units move'.

At the start of the phase, if he was within 2" of a unit at the end of the last movement phase ( or deployed with the unit) He is still joined until he moves away.
The only way he can move( or be moved away from) is in the joined units movement.

[Tynskel]

Read it your self, you claimed that a unit that is piling in First must follow the coherency rules.
That is false.
Page 23

Units in CC must move as close as possible to the enemy, yes they use the movement rules, but coherency is over-ruled by the special rules of Pile In.
There is an exception in the rules you didn't quote.

I've already quoted and agreed that the initial charge has this wording, which you quoted from me.

I have no idea what you think Coteaz's rule has to do with this.
GK Codex Page 45

Thats a total red herring and has nothing to do with this discussion.

He shoots at the unit when it arrives... thats it,even the FAQs state that.


Ok Tynskel, it does say that an IC can only leave a Unit in the Movement phase "by moving out of coherency with it"
Not at the start, not declaring it, but moving the model (or the units models) out of coherency, which is checked 'at the end of the units move'.

At the start of the phase, if he was within 2" of a unit at the end of the last movement phase ( or deployed with the unit) He is still joined until he moves away.
The only way he can move( or be moved away from) is in the joined units movement.

Yes, it does. The unit moves out of coherency. You declare you are moving the unit out of coherency. And you are done. That means someone has to move out of coherency. Nothing else.

[Magpie]

Read it your self, you claimed that a unit that is piling in First must follow the coherency rules.
That is false.
Page 23

Units in CC must move as close as possible to the enemy, yes they use the movement rules, but coherency is over-ruled by the special rules of Pile In.

Where in the Pile In rules does it say that a model may move out of coherency?

You need a specific exemption for that to be able to happen otherwise:
"A charging model must end its charge move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved."
Still applies because of this :
"These moves follow the same rules as moving charging models,"

[SeattleDV8]

Fair enough, it does say 'as moving charging models' and not the normal movement rules.

Actually Tynskel, the only thing you have to declare when moving a unit is which models are remaining stationary, page 10 'Which Models are Moving"

[Nabterayl]

The rules state that if you are within 2" of the unit at the end of the phase, the IC is defaulted joined the squad. There's nothing in the rules about the beginning of the phase.

Sooooo.... if you don't move the unit, or the IC, then you are inherently declaring the IC is joined to the unit.

Again, the action is on the player to decide, not the game mechanics.
Wait, you're suggesting that at the start of each Movement phase an IC's joined or unjoined status essentially defaults to superposition? That is to say, if an IC was joined to a unit last turn, and it remains in coherency with the unit it was joined to last turn, this turn its joined or separated status is undetermined?

[Wolfshade]

Wait, you're suggesting that at the start of each Movement phase an IC's joined or unjoined status essentially defaults to superposition? That is to say, if an IC was joined to a unit last turn, and it remains in coherency with the unit it was joined to last turn, this turn its joined or separated status is undetermined?

Certainly.

[Magpie]

No I don't go along with this at all.

There isn't a default that if you're within 2" you auto join, not at all.

You must have specifically and intentionally moved to join a unit at the end of its movement phase, not THE movement phase. If a unit happens to roll up and stop within 2" of the IC and the IC has already moved or doesn't move, the IC is NOT joined to that unit.

Once joined the only way an IC can leave is by moving out of coherency as we talked about earlier. So at the start of the movement phase if he joined last turn then he is still joined, no indetermination about it.

[Daemonette666]

That's exactly the question Magpie and I have been discussing. Do you only have to end up with all models in coherency? Is that "maintaining coherency" within the meaning of the rules? Or do you have to move your models such that, if they were all moving simultaneously, at no point in its movement would any model be more than 2" away from any other? Is that what the rulebook means when it says "maintain coherency?" As you say, when there are small bits of terrain on the battlefield, the distinction could matter.

I've always understood "maintain coherency" to mean the former, but Magpie understands it to be the latter. If we knew which one is correct, we could easily answer the questions we've been having about ICs separating. I think this is one question where the text doesn't give us what we need, though. I certainly see the merits of Magpie's view, but I can't see any way to prove him or me wrong.

As soon as I move my first model in the unit, it has moved out of coherency with the rest of the unit. I move my next model, it has moved into coherency with the first model moved, and out of coherency with the bulk of the unit. Does this mean that I put them all on a board with holes 2" apart, and simply pick up the board to ensure that they all were no more than 2" apart when the unit moved?

Really it does not matter. In fact I have had units move so that the entire unit formed a large ring, with each model within 2" of another model in the unit. It made it so difficult for the enemy blast templates to get more than one model wounded, even if the blast marker hit.

I have even had units where part of the unit was in a line up to an objective, while the rest of the unit (still in a 2" unbroken chain of coherency) were sitting in a spread out blob in area terrain. I have moved models through terrain (to the other side of it), and others around the terrain to get them all in charging, or shooting distance of the enemy. At the end of the move, they were all in coherency, and the 30man cultist unit was able to shoot most of its auto pistols, 2 of its flamers, before it and the attached Dark Apostle charged.

No, it should not matter about maintaining unit coherency while the unit is in the process of moving, only when they have finished their move.

[Nabterayl]

No I don't go along with this at all.

There isn't a default that if you're within 2" you auto join, not at all.

You must have specifically and intentionally moved to join a unit at the end of its movement phase, not THE movement phase. If a unit happens to roll up and stop within 2" of the IC and the IC has already moved or doesn't move, the IC is NOT joined to that unit.

Once joined the only way an IC can leave is by moving out of coherency as we talked about earlier. So at the start of the movement phase if he joined last turn then he is still joined, no indetermination about it.
Okay, that's an important point to get settled. You maintain that when the rulebook says, "In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase," it is referring to the end of the Independent Character's Movement phase. That I strongly disagree with. The rulebook has already referred to the IC in that sentence using "he." It makes the most sense, therefore, to read "their" as referring to the "friendly unit," not the IC.

[Magpie]

No, it should not matter about maintaining unit coherency while the unit is in the process of moving, only when they have finished their move.

There are probably very few times when it becomes important for sure but if you are in a very restricted terrain it can have an enormous effect, also units that have models moving at different speeds can gain a particular advantage.

Should a unit of beasts be allowed to "take the long way around" an obstacle, moving well out of coherency, while the infantry IC's take the shorter but more restricted route and thus get more models in a position to charge for example?

Should you be allowed to "split" a unit out of coherency to go either side of dangerous or impassable terrain so you can move further forward ?

[Magpie]

It makes the most sense, therefore, to read "their" as referring to the "friendly unit," not the IC.

Yes I agree with that and have done all along, sorry if I wrote it to give the wrong impression.

It is the unit who must be at the end of their movement phase. In fact if the IC joins the unit and they haven't moved, then they lose the ability to move anyway.

[Nabterayl]

Right, well, that's cleared up. Do you agree that joining a unit is mandatory? That is to say, if at the end of my Movement phase, after all units have moved, I have an IC within 2" of a friendly unit, the IC must join that unit whether I like it or not? And similarly, if at the end of my Movement phase an IC is in a transport along with another joinable unit (e.g., not a unit that always consists of a single model), the IC must join the unit in the transport whether I like it or not?

[Magpie]

Right, well, that's cleared up. Do you agree that joining a unit is mandatory? That is to say, if at the end of my Movement phase, after all units have moved, I have an IC within 2" of a friendly unit, the IC must join that unit whether I like it or not? And similarly, if at the end of my Movement phase an IC is in a transport along with another joinable unit (e.g., not a unit that always consists of a single model), the IC must join the unit in the transport whether I like it or not?

No not at all. The rule book says you must stay 2" away where possible from a unit you do not wish to join. So from that I take it that you can declare you are not joining a unit that is within 2" is it isn't possible for you to not be within 2".

The transport is a different case because it has the auto join specifically mentioned in the rule AND a unit/IC cannot enter the transport if they don't join as the transport can only have one unit (or other half of a combat squad) in it at a time.

[Nabterayl]

What sort of boundaries to you place on "possible?" Let's take a few scenarios:

The board is completely devoid of terrain. IC moves to point X. Unit A moves to within 2" of point X. In this case it seems to me that IC and A must join.
The board features a relatively narrow canyon. IC moves to point X, within the canyon. Unit A also wants to move through the canyon (though is able to move around it instead), and ends up within 2" of point X. In this case it seems to me that IC and A must join.
Do you agree with my analysis of both of those hypotheticals? In both cases, the salient point seems to me to be that nobody made Unit A move to within 2" of point X. It didn't have to go through the canyon, even though that may have been the tactically advisable option. Maybe we disagree on these two hypos. But if we don't, I'm having a hard time seeing a situation where a unit can involuntarily wind up in coherency with a friendly IC at the end of that unit's Movement phase.

[Magpie]

The onus seems to be on the IC so if the unit moves up to the IC then I don't see a join happening. I think the spirit of the rule tho' would be for the unit to stay away.

The canyon one is a good example too. In the case of the IC being second to move then it would have to keep away.

Forcible movements are about the only things that might affect "if possible" that I can think of, bailing out of a transport for example. Maybe a low difficult terrain roll that doesn't get them clear of a unit ?

But you are dead right the "where possible" needs a bit more thought.

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough. So to bring things back to the main question, can we do a little bit of restating our positions?

I contend that when a player chooses to move a unit, he must, for each model in that unit, declare that the model is either
Taking a specified path, or
Remaining stationary "this turn," as page 10 puts it - that is, for the entire turn.
Those are the only two options I see the rules allowing. Now, in practice, of course, we move our models one at a time, and often do not decide whether a given model is moving or staying put until halfway through the process of picking up our models and placing them at their new locations. In principle, though, I think the rules require us to declare which models are moving and which are staying still before moving any of them (cf. page 10*, "You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just before you start moving the other models of that unit," emphasis mine).

If this is the rule, then an IC who begins the turn joined to a unit (because he joined the unit last turn, at the end of his Movement phase) is part of the overall unit. When I go to move any part of the OU, I must declare - technically, before any models are moved at all - which models are going to move and which are going to remain stationary for the turn** - including the IC.

I am pretty sure that there are at least two points of disagreement with me. Magpie would have it that, when moving models, each model must remain in unit coherency for its entire path. I neither agree nor disagree with that; I simply think it's an unresolvable question, whereas Magpie thinks it is resolvable. Tynskel would have it that just because an IC joined a unit last Movement phase doesn't mean it's joined to that unit this Movement phase, even if the IC remains in unit coherency with the unit it joined. I disagree with that; I contend that once an IC has joined a unit, it remains joined to that unit until it moves out of coherency or joins another unit.

Have I fairly summarized our positions? Magpie, do you disagree with me beyond the issue of how models move?

* Just for you, Tynskel ;)

** Page 10 says that I can declare a model stationary for "this turn," but it does not say I can decide that only some models are going to move "this move," or that some models in the unit are going to move later. If the Independent Character rule on page 39 contains an exception to this general rule about moving and remaining stationary, I don't see it. I am not persuaded by Tynskel's argument that we must infer an exception because an Independent Character can, under the right circumstances, be its own unit. I simply see no relationship between that and the page 10 rule at all.

[40kGamer]

Ok... after rereading the rules and plowing through the posts here until I got a headache I've decided to go with:

No I would not personally disembark-move-disembark and I would be surprised to see a TO allow it without an FAQ. On the flip side I wouldn't care if someone used this during a friendly game...

The whole issue for me is the same as "can an IC grant infiltrate to units during deployment"... it boils down to exactly when is the IC considered "part" of the unit...

Since

- An IC in a transport with a unit is automatically joined to the unit. Pg79
- and, "While an IC is part of a unit he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" Pg 39
- and, Once a "unit" is activated it must complete its entire move before you move another unit. Pg10 (As the IC is "automatically joined" to the unit they are activated as part of the unit.
- Supporting this, an IC and unit disembarking from a transport explicitly lists every possible option except the one being debated. Pg79

Doesn't mean this is what was intended but it does seem to be what is written. :rolleyes:

[Magpie]

Yep that's a pretty fair summary Nab

[Tynskel]

The rulebook does not deny the ability of the units to 'move away' from an IC, because the IC can be its own unit. Again, I do not see what the issue is here with having the unit leave the IC–it *is* the same thing as the IC moving away from the unit. There is nothing in the rules that states otherwise.

There is not inequality in the reversal reading of the rules. Additionally, the combat squad is actually a valid point. The rulebook *allows* two units to leave at separate times. There is nothing to prohibit the unit from *leaving* the IC.


Again, I bring up the example of the 11 ICs in the Stormraven. They can each individually apply "Skies of Fury". 11 Deep Strikes.


There is no dependent variable on the IC.

the whole 'purposes of unit' rule is pretty clear. This is to make sure that you don't have an IC 12" away and is 'attached'. Or, when you fire the weapons in a unit, you cannot have the IC firing at something else. Or that in assault, that the IC is still a member of a unit. It is not defined in the rulebook that *once* a IC joins a unit that it is forevermore apart of that unit, it just means that as long as you declare it as part of the unit, it must abide by those rules.

What is clear: the time and place to declare ICs is *only* during the movement phase.

[SeattleDV8]

The rulebook does not deny the ability of the units to 'move away' from an IC, because the IC can be its own unit. Again, I do not see what the issue is here with having the unit leave the IC–it *is* the same thing as the IC moving away from the unit. There is nothing in the rules that states otherwise.
Agreed


There is not inequality in the reversal reading of the rules. Additionally, the combat squad is actually a valid point. The rulebook *allows* two units to leave at separate times. No, that is not a good point. You Combat Squad before deployment. They are two seperate units for all game purposes. they have an exception to transport rules that allow them to be embarked in the same transport with the Unit they split from.
They never join each other though.
If it was 2 combat squads in the OPs example it would be legal for one squad to disembark, the transport move and the other unit disembark. Thats because they are two seperate units.

There is nothing to prohibit the unit from *leaving* the IC.
Again I agree.



Again, I bring up the example of the 11 ICs in the Stormraven. They can each individually apply "Skies of Fury". 11 Deep Strikes. well, maybe in an Apocalypse game you could join 11 IC's...heh
But the point is each of them could disembark or stay embarked, it happens after the Stormraven has moved. The entire unit made its move together, ending up in different places ,but moving that the same time.


There is no dependent variable on the IC. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


the whole 'purposes of unit' rule is pretty clear. This is to make sure that you don't have an IC 12" away and is 'attached'. Or, when you fire the weapons in a unit, you cannot have the IC firing at something else. Or that in assault, that the IC is still a member of a unit. It is not defined in the rulebook that *once* a IC joins a unit that it is forevermore apart of that unit, it just means that as long as you declare it as part of the unit, it must abide by those rules.

What is clear: the time and place to declare ICs is *only* during the movement phase.
Here is where you go off the track, there is no 'declare' except in deployment.
If the IC ends up within 2" of a unit at the end of your movement phase he is joined ( except for the 'where possible' exception which still happens at the end of movement)
If the IC is embarked he is joined.
The only time the IC can leave the unit is at the end of the units move,both parts, by breaking coherency.
If you have a rule could you please quote it?

Side note the IC must remain 2" away from units it don't wish to or cannot join (if possible) is one of the hold overs from 5th ed.
It was illegal by RAW for a single IC to disembark from a transport that had moved because he would end up within 2" of a unit he couldn't join...the transport. They added an errata the 'if possible' line. That said the wording is still here and is the current RAW.

[Magpie]

The only time the IC can leave the unit is at the end of the units move,both parts, by breaking coherency.
If you have a rule could you please quote it?

It doesn't have to be at the end of the unit's move for leaving, only joining.

[Tynskel]

Agreed

well, maybe in an Apocalypse game you could join 11 IC's...heh
But the point is each of them could disembark or stay embarked, it happens after the Stormraven has moved. The entire unit made its move together, ending up in different places ,but moving that the same time. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


9 Sanguinary Priests, 2 HQs. You could fit it into 1000 points on the button if you were nuts (2 Libbys, 9 Priests, Stormraven, 2 Scout Squads).

[Tynskel]

Here is where you go off the track, there is no 'declare' except in deployment.
If the IC ends up within 2" of a unit at the end of your movement phase he is joined ( except for the 'where possible' exception which still happens at the end of movement)
If the IC is embarked he is joined.
The only time the IC can leave the unit is at the end of the units move,both parts, by breaking coherency.
If you have a rule could you please quote it?

Side note the IC must remain 2" away from units it don't wish to or cannot join (if possible) is one of the hold overs from 5th ed.
It was illegal by RAW for a single IC to disembark from a transport that had moved because he would end up within 2" of a unit he couldn't join...the transport. They added an errata the 'if possible' line. That said the wording is still here and is the current RAW.

That is incorrect. You have to declare if models are moving or not, because *now* individual models may stay stationary while others are moving.
IC 'ends up'. So, when your unit *moves away* from the IC, it is no longer 'ending up within 2 inches'.

That is incorrect. The *only* time both units move together is when they are acting as a unit together, *otherwise* they are acting independently, because you can *only* activate one unit at a time. You cannot activate 2 units at the same time.

You are joking about the transport thingy, right? Because the last time I checked, models with wounds can't join models with hull points.

[Nabterayl]

The rulebook does not deny the ability of the units to 'move away' from an IC, because the IC can be its own unit. Again, I do not see what the issue is here with having the unit leave the IC–it *is* the same thing as the IC moving away from the unit. There is nothing in the rules that states otherwise.
Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding you, I agree that a unit can move away from an IC, or an IC can move away from a unit, in order to effect separation. I do not think the rules are particular either way.


There is not inequality in the reversal reading of the rules. Additionally, the combat squad is actually a valid point. The rulebook *allows* two units to leave at separate times. There is nothing to prohibit the unit from *leaving* the IC.
As the above, there is certainly nothing prohibiting the unit from leaving the IC. If I have ever suggested otherwise, I apologize. However, I doubt you consider two combat squads in the same transport one unit, whereas I assume you do consider an IC and a single squad squad in the same transport to be one unit.


Again, I bring up the example of the 11 ICs in the Stormraven. They can each individually apply "Skies of Fury". 11 Deep Strikes.
According to who? This sounds like begging the question, unless you have a citation you've declined to provide.


the whole 'purposes of unit' rule is pretty clear. This is to make sure that you don't have an IC 12" away and is 'attached'. Or, when you fire the weapons in a unit, you cannot have the IC firing at something else. Or that in assault, that the IC is still a member of a unit. It is not defined in the rulebook that *once* a IC joins a unit that it is forevermore apart of that unit, it just means that as long as you declare it as part of the unit, it must abide by those rules.
There is no "purposes of unit." Nobody but you has ever cited that phrase. There is only "all rules purposes." We need not try to divine what the scope of "all rules purposes" is - its scope is plain on its face. Whenever we ask, "Is the IC part of the unit for purposes of this rule?" the answer is yes.

Let us suppose that I choose to activate a unit with a character, such as a space marine sergeant. I contend that when I activate that unit (or, in rules terms, when I choose to move that unit) I must declare the sergeant's movement before I can finish moving that unit. I can declare that the sergeant is moving, and how, or I can declare that the sergeant is not moving for the turn, all provided that the sergeant maintains coherency (whatever that means) with the rest of his unit. Until I do that, and do it for each other model in the squad, I cannot move another unit.

Why do I think this? I think that I have to declare each model's movement (or un-movement) before I can move another unit because the rules tell me, "once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit" and "You may decide that only some of the models in [the unit you have chosen to move] are going to move this turn." I think that a model in the unit that remains stationary must remain stationary for the entire turn because the rules tell me, "this turn."

Now suppose that in addition to a sergeant I have a space marine captain joined to the unit. When I ask myself, "Do I treat this captain as part of the unit for purposes of the movement/activation rules?" the rules tell me that yes, the captain is part of the unit for "all rules purposes." The only difference between the captain and the sergeant is that the captain need not remain in coherency. Thus, like the sergeant, I can either declare the captain to be moving (whether with or away from the rest of the unit) or to be stationary "for this turn." Until I have done that, I haven't finished the unit's move, and I am prohibited from moving any other unit in my army.

I can't tell where you disagree with me. I think there are two likely places, but I'm not sure whether you disagree with only one (and if so, which one) or both. My guesses are you disagree that:

A space marine captain that ended its last Movement phase joined to a unit, in coherency with or in the same transport as that unit, is still joined to that unit at the start of its next Movement phase, and/or that
"All rules purposes" includes the rules on page 10 about each model in a unit having to move or stand stationary before any other unit can be moved.
1, 2, both? Or something else entirely?

[Tynskel]

What I am saying is that the unit disembarking the vehicle has left *without* the character. The Character was *never* activated, therefore, you can choose the next unit. In this case would be the tank moving 6". Then the character can be *activated* and moved.

'All purposes' ended with the moving of the unit *away* from the character.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest this is incorrect. This is a completely reversible process, you could read the rule either as the character moving away from the unit to separate from the unit, or the unit moving away from the character to separate from the unit, just as you can move a character toward a unit to attach a character, or move a unit toward a character to attach a character.

Completely reversible process, and nothing in the rules suggests any sort of inequity in rules. (an example inequity would be a model died. You cannot reverse that process.)

The #1 rule in all of this is that no unit can move more than once.
The #2 rule is that all models must be declared what they are doing.

[SeattleDV8]

It doesn't have to be at the end of the unit's move for leaving, only joining.
Patently untrue, Page 39
An Independent Character can leave a unit by moving out of unit coherency with it
Page 11 tell us this is checked when the unit has finished moving.
I know you believe this is at the moment the IC moves out of coherency, but you still haven't shown that by the rules.

Tin tin ....take a deep breath.....Ok 11 HQs,big deal...the point still stands they all disembark(or not ) at the same time.

You only declare if a model is NOT moving page 10 again.
There is no declaring for models that are moving.
Give a rule or drop it.

No, I am not joking about the transport thing from 5th, as I said the IC can not join the transport.
It was a silly RAW issue from a past edition.
I never claimed that an IC can join a transport, because they can't.
Hull points is not the reason why, they can't join vehicle squadron or units that are always a single model, exception for an IC.

Yes it is correct that the entire unit (both squad and IC) are a single unit until the IC leaves.
That means the entire unit must move at the same time.
When joined the IC counts as part of the Unit, you still have not offered any rule that changes this.

The IC is activated because he is still part of the unit.
If the unit is activated so is he.

(an example inequity would be a model died. You cannot reverse that process.) Hmmm talk to the Necrons, i'm sure they will disagree.

[Magpie]

Patently untrue, Page 39

Only if you ignore this:
"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."


Page 11 tell us this is checked when the unit has finished moving.

Ah no it says that it must be achieved at that point, nothing anywhere limits the checking of coherency to the end of the movement phase. Have you forgotten I showed the cases in the assault phase and the shooting phase via the requirement to run ?



I know you believe this is at the moment the IC moves out of coherency, but you still haven't shown that by the rules.

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

[Nabterayl]

What I am saying is that the unit disembarking the vehicle has left *without* the character. The Character was *never* activated, therefore, you can choose the next unit.
I understand that. However, as page 10 reminds us, each and every model in the unit must either stand stationary for the turn, or move, and anybody standing stationary for the turn must declare that he is doing so before anybody in the unit has moved.

So we have an IC and a squad who are both embarked upon the same transport, and thus the same unit. The owning player decides to move that unit. As he can only decide to move units, he cannot - at this point - decide to move only the IC or only the squad, as neither of those is a complete unit until they have separated. At this point, each model in the unit - Independent Character or not - may do only one of two things. It can either stand stationary for the turn, or it can move. Nobody can stand stationary for the turn once anybody has started to move. That's all straight from page 10 - do you agree?

The owning player does not want the IC to disembark, so he declares that the IC will not move for the turn. Nobody else in the unit is standing stationary. The squad proceeds to move, disembarking and thus separating from the IC.

The IC and the squad are, at this point, two separate units. The owning player proceeds to move any other units in his army that he wishes, perhaps including the transport. He chooses the IC to move. He can choose the IC at this point, since it is its own complete unit. Unfortunately, previously this Movement phase, he has declared the IC to be standing stationary for the turn.

He didn't want to do that, of course. He wanted to do one of the following:

Declare that the IC is standing stationary only for purposes of its current unit's move, or
Separate into its own complete unit before its combined unit was chosen to move.
Unfortunately, neither of those two things is permitted. Page 10 only permits a model to stand stationary for the entire turn; there is no rule that permits a model to stand stationary for the duration of a unit's turn only. Neither is there any rule that permits an IC, presently joined to a unit, to separate prior to the aggregate unit's move. The only ways in which an IC is allowed to separate from a unit are to move out of coherency with it during the Movement phase (page 39, "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it") or by one or the other disembarking from a shared transport (page 79, "Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent Character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board"). Both of these methods run into the sequencing "problem" I outlined above - they both require somebody in the combined unit to move (not necessarily the IC), and in order for anybody in the combined unit to move, everybody (including the IC, since nobody has separated yet) must declare that he is either moving or standing still for the turn. If the IC declares that he is standing still for the turn, obviously he cannot then move later in the Movement phase. If the IC moves, well, then, he has moved, and obviously cannot move later in the Movement phase.

[Magpie]

All this goes away if you simply accept that at the moment of the IC moving with the intent of leaving or the unit/IC disembarking they are instantly 2 separate units.

[Nabterayl]

No, it doesn't. You need to be able to separate before anybody is chosen to move, and I don't see a way to do that.

[Magpie]

I just think we are way over analysing it.
The IC moves and the unit is left to it's own devices and vice versa for a transport, end of.
If the notion was supported that an IC moving off meant that the unit has also moved it would be mentioned in the rule, in the same way it is for when he joins.
All this stuff about activating and nominating who is or isn't moving is just making it far more complex than it really is.

Most times the simplest explanation is the RAI

[40kGamer]

No, it doesn't. You need to be able to separate before anybody is chosen to move, and I don't see a way to do that.

It all comes down to 'can you "activate" the IC for movement without activating the unit they are joined with' and from how I interpret the rules it seems more likely that the answer is no.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think we are overanalyzing it. As 40kGamer said, the transport rules mention three possibilities: the IC and squad disembark simultaneously, the IC disembarks and the squad "remains on board," and the squad disembarks and the IC "remains on board." If "remain on board" meant "remain on board until the transport moves and then hop out," I think the more likely scenario is that the rules would have made some sort of mention of it.

This whole question is a fairly esoteric scenario - most of the time when a squad and IC separate, they do effectively move simultaneously. I think the rule of simplicity argues against being able to separate the two, move only one, move other things, and then move the other. I'm just attempting to demonstrate that we can (must) get there through the rules, and not just an intuition that simple is usually right.

[Magpie]

If "remain on board" meant "remain on board until the transport moves and then hop out," I think the more likely scenario is that the rules would have made some sort of mention of it.


Why? There are a multitude of things an IC can do whilst onboard and they are covered in the rules governing passengers. None of them need be listed unless they are altered in some way.

The embarked IC can still shoot out of a fire point, repair a hull point if they are a Techmarine or indeed, get out.
No caveat is placed on any of these activities by the rule that covers a unit leaving the IC behind and unless there is we can only conclude that the passenger is free to do them all.

[Nabterayl]

Well, that's why I dislike appealing to the rule of simplicity. I think it works much better for gentlemen friends than it does for gentlemen strangers.

So, as we're merely gentlemen strangers ... do you think I'm wrong that separation can only occur through the movement of one or the other components of a combined unit? Do you think I'm wrong that, before a player can move any model in any unit of any description, any models part of that unit that are not going to move this turn must declare so, and any models that do not so declare must move? If so, what citations do you have to support your reading, or in what way have I misread mine?

Or do you merely think that my reading, while correct with respect to the text of the rules, ought to be disregarded because it is overanalyzing?

[SeattleDV8]

Well, do you agree that the IC is part of the Unit at the start of the movement phase?

If so when does he become his own unit, when is he seperated?

[40kGamer]

Well, do you agree that the IC is part of the Unit at the start of the movement phase?

If so when does he become his own unit, when is he seperated?

That's definitely the burning question... same type of issue that comes up when using the IC to infiltrate a unit during deployment. Seems there is no universal answer!

[Magpie]

Well, do you agree that the IC is part of the Unit at the start of the movement phase?

If so when does he become his own unit, when is he seperated?

As the rule says, when he moves away. No specific point in that move is mentioned so we can only conclude that it is at the instant of the move beginning.

Not wanting to throw too much more noise into the debate but I think it is worth mentioning that the IC is never truly part of the unit. They only ever "count as" part of the unit which I think is an important distinction.

[Nabterayl]

What, in your mind, is the distinction between a model that is part of a unit and one that counts as part of a unit for all rules purposes?

Among the reasons I dislike the approach that Magpie is championing is that the instant the move begins does not seem to me to be the natural time for the unit to separate. Since we are told that separation happens "by moving out of unit coherency" with the joined unit, it seems to me that the natural time for the separation to occur is whenever in the move the IC ceases to be in unit coherency. Now, when exactly that is depends on whether you agree with Magpie about how models move, but it is never going to be at the instant the move begins. Even if there is only one other model to which the IC is joined (due to casualties, say), and even if that other model is precisely 2" away from the IC, they will only cease to be in coherency the instant after the move begins.

Which brings me back to the fact that the IC is, at the moment the overall unit is chosen to move by its owning player, part of that unit for all purposes.

[SeattleDV8]

'Count as' is a distinction without a difference.
When joined he must follow all of the rules of a unit, with the exception of being able to move out of coherency by choice.

So after the unit is activated?

[Magpie]

Counts is very obviously "acts like but isn't actually", one of the big distinctions in this case being that tho' part of a unit the model is allowed to leave that unit.

How and when exactly is a unit "activated" ?

If your going to suggest that what is pretty clearly written in the book, IC leaves by moving away without any mention of "at the end of the movement phase" or "unit cannot move" as is stipulated in other parts of the rule, is overriden by "activation" your going to need to provide chapter and verse.

[Nabterayl]

"Activation" is being used as shorthand for what occurs when you select a unit to move. Although page 10 never says that you must initially select a unit to move, it does say that "once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit," which I think pretty clearly requires (if one needed textual proof) that one select a unit to move before one can move a unit.

Do you disagree that an Independent Character can begin the Movement phase joined to a unit? I ask because apparently Tynskel does.

Do you disagree that an Independent Character joined to a unit at the beginning of the Movement phase is still part of the combined unit before any models in the combined unit have moved?

[Magpie]

"Activation" is being used as shorthand for what occurs when you select a unit to move. Although page 10 never says that you must initially select a unit to move, it does say that "once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit," which I think pretty clearly requires (if one needed textual proof) that one select a unit to move before one can move a unit.

Ok so really it is "choose a unit to move" with really no further implication beyond nominating that you are about to move that unit. The only rule restriction is that once you start moving a unit you must continue to move that unit until the movement is done.

Which is why I say the very act of saying "this guy is leaving the unit" is sufficient to separate him from it as you have nominated the unit you are going to move. Just as you can stipulate which unit he will join you can also stipulate that he will leave.


Do you disagree that an Independent Character can begin the Movement phase joined to a unit? I ask because apparently Tynskel does.

And IC must being the phase joined to the unit because if he had joined the unit in an earlier turn/ deployment, the only time he can leave voluntarily is during the movement phase.


Do you disagree that an Independent Character joined to a unit at the beginning of the Movement phase is still part of the combined unit before any models in the combined unit have moved?

yes, as I said above I believe the RAI is to simply nominate the intention to leave.

[Nabterayl]

Okay, your turn to quote chapter and verse. Page 39 is pretty clear that an IC can separate by moving out of unit coherency. To the extent that you think an IC separates at the instant coherency is broken (whenever that is), I agree with you. But I don't see anything to imply that you can separate simply by intending to break coherency, when you haven't broken coherency yet.

[Magpie]

As I said oh so many pages ago. Moving out of coherency, not being or ending, the act of moving.

Protocol being as detailed through out the rule that you inform your opponent that they are leaving just the same as when you deploy or when it isn't clear whom they have joined you nominate the unit.

Otherwise, as we spoke about before, as the units moves the practicalities of moving models one by one could make it confusing as to whether the IC is actually leaving or just moving along with the unit.

[Nabterayl]

The distinction I see between intent being sufficient and the actual act is this.


Let's say that you're right about how units move, and for rules purposes all models move simultaneously and must maintain coherency at every point of their move, even if we are practically unable to move our physical models that way.

Let's further stipulate that we have an IC joined to a squad such that the instant any model in the squad moves an iota, the IC will no longer be in coherency.

Finally, let's stipulate that you are right that coherency can be gained or lost at any point during a model's continuous movement.

I select the unit (squad + IC) to move. Physically, I pick up the models in the squad and place them in their new positions. Rules-wise, all those models take a continuous path from their old to their new positions. The instant any of them move the slightest bit, coherency with the IC is broken.

I stop moving my squad and go to move another unit in my army. My opponent stops me and asks what my IC is doing. "I don't know," I reply. "I haven't gotten around to him."

"But you have to move him," my opponent says. "You didn't finish your last move."

"Sure I did," I say. "The instant I moved anybody in that unit, the IC broke coherency and became his own unit."

"Yes," says my opponent, "but you had already said you were going to move the IC, and you haven't done that."

I think my opponent is right in this case. Why?

Page 10 says:


Whether or not a model moves can change how effective it will be in the shooting phase. You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just before you start moving the other models of that unit. Remember that models must still maintain unit coherency.

This rule implies - and I mean that in its strong sense, that it requires - that before you move anybody in a unit, you must declare that each model in the unit is going to move or stand still.* Thus, although my IC will separate the instant any of the squad models move, before that instant I must declare that he is either moving or not moving.

"Okay," I say. "If you'll let me take back that move, I'll do the exact same thing but declare that the IC is remaining stationary."

"Sure," says my opponent, happy to be the gentleman. "But that will be his move."

"What do you mean?" I ask. "I don't want him to remain stationary for the entire Movement phase, just until the end of this squad's move. Page 10 says I can choose a model to remain stationary, so my IC will remain stationary until he becomes his own unit the instant this squad moves."

And here, although my opponent will probably feel a bit like a jerk for pointing it out, I run into the fact that page 10 doesn't allow models to just remain stationary. Although it is logically possible for a model to remain stationary for only part of the Movement phase, page 10 only allows models to remain stationary for the entire turn.

* Proof: There are no possibilities but that an object be moving or not moving. Before any models in a unit move, I must identify all models that are not moving. It follows that all models are not not moving. The only way to not not move is to move.

[Magpie]

The scenario you outline is precisely why the IC rule IMO says that you must move the IC and only he can leave the unit, the unit cannot leave him. It is also why I say the protocol would be to say "this bloke is leaving the unit" and then move him on his way.

Standing still is not an option, for and IC to satisfy the requirement to be "simply moving away" he must undergo some form of spatial displacement ( ! :) )

The ONLY exception to this is the transport case, where it is abundantly clear that the squad has disembarked and the IC has not and the rulebook recognises this and gives us the ability to do that.

[Nabterayl]

I can accept that, but I don't think it gets around the scenario I outlined. Whether the IC separates the instant the squad moves away (or after the squad has moved 1", 2", or more) or not, before I move anybody in the combined unit I must declare what each model is doing - either standing still or staying stationary for the turn. If the IC declares that he is moving, well, there's his move for the turn. If the IC declares that he is standing still for the turn, well, he's standing still for the turn.

Now, if you're right about how ICs can separate, we raise different questions - I suppose, in the case of an IC declaring he was standing still, he'd essentially anchor the squad the same way that d*mned heavy weapons guy does when he stands still. But that's secondary to the issue in the above paragraph - or at least another thread, probably.

[Magpie]

Yeh it does, if the squad "moves away" and the IC hasn't moved yet, he must go with them.

Only he can leave them not them leave he, if he doesn't move first he is stuck with the squad until next turn.

[Nabterayl]

Was that agreement I heard lurking in your last post?

[Magpie]

Not sure, I've always said that the squad cannot leave the IC it has to be the IC moving first, except in the specific exception case of the disembarking squad.

[SeattleDV8]

And of course with this idea you get some very strange rule interactions.
Belial and Sammuel are joined.
Sammuel get bored with 6" of movement and decides to jet away 12" leaving the unit.
At this point Sammuel has left the unit and is on his own.
But Belial has not left the unit and is still joined.
This isn't quantum mechanics, you can't be both joined and not joined.

Your outlook causes problems, what Nabterayl and I are talking about (the IC leaves at the end of the units movement) does not.
Doesn't matter who or how any model in the Joined unit moves ,only where they end their movement.
Single and trouble free.

[Nabterayl]

Eh, I really think we should leave this to another thread. The point of this thread is to answer the question of whether a combined unit can separate (however that is accomplished) and have either half still able to move. I say no, because page 10 requires you to declare whether each model in the combined unit is standing still for the turn or moving, before anybody moves and thus before any separation can occur (even if it will occur once people actually start moving).

Historically, Magpie has said yes. Not sure if he still does.

[Lord Krungharr]

Sorry guys , but the IC is part of the Unit when it moves.
That means he can leave the unit by either him moving away or the unit moving away(or both).
This is allowed by the IC rules ( so no Darklink thats not what my logic would lead to).

In both cases that counts as his movement phase.
Once the transport has moved it is too late for the IC to move .
Note the rule I quoted
The IC counts as moving when he leaves the unit, otherwise he can't leave at all, even if he hasn't moved.
That said he has moved, you don't get two moves in the movement phase.

The vehicle rules really don't have much to do with this, it's the movement rules.

You wouldn't move the unit away from the IC, move other units then come back and move the IC.
No, you would move both the IC and the unit at the same time because they are one unit at that time.

The vehicle question just confuses the issue.
Yes, Magpie , the IC can stay behind, he doesn't get at extra move.

Seattle DV8 is incorrect. The moving of the vehicle and disembarking all count as movement, they compose the unit's movement phase. The part where they move out of coherency would happen to occur in the component of the movement phase called disembarking. Unless there's an FAQ I'm not aware of disallowing it.

[Magpie]

And of course with this idea you get some very strange rule interactions.
Belial and Sammuel are joined.
Sammuel get bored with 6" of movement and decides to jet away 12" leaving the unit.
At this point Sammuel has left the unit and is on his own.
But Belial has not left the unit and is still joined.
This isn't quantum mechanics, you can't be both joined and not joined.

Your outlook causes problems, what Nabterayl and I are talking about (the IC leaves at the end of the units movement) does not.
Doesn't matter who or how any model in the Joined unit moves ,only where they end their movement.
Single and trouble free.

Sorry but that doesn't even begin to make the slightest bit of sense. If there are two units, each of which is an IC joined together to form a single unit then as soon as one or the other leaves the combined unit obviously you now have two separate units.

There is no end of movement phase test for an IC leaving a unit.


Eh, I really think we should leave this to another thread. The point of this thread is to answer the question of whether a combined unit can separate (however that is accomplished) and have either half still able to move. I say no, because page 10 requires you to declare whether each model in the combined unit is standing still for the turn or moving, before anybody moves and thus before any separation can occur (even if it will occur once people actually start moving).

Historically, Magpie has said yes. Not sure if he still does.

Standing still has nothing to do with it. As far as the IC is concerned all he has to do is leave.
As soon as you select the IC to move he is no longer part of the unit if your intention is to move him out of coherency.
Transports grant an exception to that general principle by allowing the squad to leave by disembarking.

[Nabterayl]

Magpie, there's the intention thing again - you're clearly stating that you believe the rules allow an IC to separate from a unit even if neither have them moved at all (albeit, provided that they are going to move in a particular way in the future). What's your citation for that?

[Magpie]

As I have said repeatedly mate "by moving out of coherency" the statement of intent is there purely as a protocol thing to indicate that it isn't moving out of coherency as part of the normal move of the unit.

To avoid that situation where you move the IC and the go off to another unit and you opponent goes, "Hang on what about those blokes? "

[Nabterayl]

The statement of intent can't be both purely a protocol thing and the thing that is sufficient to effect separation. Either the statement of intent can effect separation, or it's merely a protocol thing and what actually effects separation is the movement.

If it's the former, I challenge you to come up with a cite that allows separation prior to movement. If it's the latter, I still rest on page 10.

[Magpie]

Rest away although I'm not sure what nominating the models to not move has to do with anything in regards of an IC leaving a unit.
It is irrelevant mate, a totally different rule.

All you need to look at is the IC rule which says they can leave during the movement phase by moving out of coherency. No where is it stated that an IC leaving a squad means the squad has moved.

[Tynskel]

I understand that. However, as page 10 reminds us, each and every model in the unit must either stand stationary for the turn, or move, and anybody standing stationary for the turn must declare that he is doing so before anybody in the unit has moved.

So we have an IC and a squad who are both embarked upon the same transport, and thus the same unit. The owning player decides to move that unit. As he can only decide to move units, he cannot - at this point - decide to move only the IC or only the squad, as neither of those is a complete unit until they have separated. At this point, each model in the unit - Independent Character or not - may do only one of two things. It can either stand stationary for the turn, or it can move. Nobody can stand stationary for the turn once anybody has started to move. That's all straight from page 10 - do you agree?

The owning player does not want the IC to disembark, so he declares that the IC will not move for the turn. Nobody else in the unit is standing stationary. The squad proceeds to move, disembarking and thus separating from the IC.

The IC and the squad are, at this point, two separate units. The owning player proceeds to move any other units in his army that he wishes, perhaps including the transport. He chooses the IC to move. He can choose the IC at this point, since it is its own complete unit. Unfortunately, previously this Movement phase, he has declared the IC to be standing stationary for the turn.

He didn't want to do that, of course. He wanted to do one of the following:

Declare that the IC is standing stationary only for purposes of its current unit's move, or
Separate into its own complete unit before its combined unit was chosen to move.
Unfortunately, neither of those two things is permitted. Page 10 only permits a model to stand stationary for the entire turn; there is no rule that permits a model to stand stationary for the duration of a unit's turn only. Neither is there any rule that permits an IC, presently joined to a unit, to separate prior to the aggregate unit's move. The only ways in which an IC is allowed to separate from a unit are to move out of coherency with it during the Movement phase (page 39, "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it") or by one or the other disembarking from a shared transport (page 79, "Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent Character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board"). Both of these methods run into the sequencing "problem" I outlined above - they both require somebody in the combined unit to move (not necessarily the IC), and in order for anybody in the combined unit to move, everybody (including the IC, since nobody has separated yet) must declare that he is either moving or standing still for the turn. If the IC declares that he is standing still for the turn, obviously he cannot then move later in the Movement phase. If the IC moves, well, then, he has moved, and obviously cannot move later in the Movement phase.

I disagree.
Again, you haven't addressed the fact that you are making an assumption before you read the rules. You are making the assumption that ICs cannot separate from a unit at any time during the movement phase. That's an unsupported assumption.

There is nothing in the rules that says an independent character or unit cannot leave each other during the movement phase that then prevents the other from moving. Simply move the unit and or IC *away* from the other. That's it. No longer attached. The respective opposite unit may do whatever.

It is quite simple, what I have proposed is completely reversible, and works with the rules.

[Anggul]

The only ways stated that allow an IC to leave a unit are by the IC itself moving out of unit coherency or having one leave a transport separately. It doesn't say that you can move the unit away to have the IC 'leave' the unit. You have to move the IC to leave, thus using his/her movement rather than the unit's, you can't just move the unit away, then move the IC afterwards. It would pretty much never make a difference unless you want the IC to go in a certain direction and moving that way would still leave him/her in coherency with the unit, which I believe would mean they would be stuck with them.

In this case, however, unit coherency is irrelevant. The rules for transports say the unit can disembark from the transport to separate. This is a new way of separating, different to the ones stated under the IC rules. Thus, I would say that you can disembark the unit, move the vehicle, then disembark the IC. At no point does the separation situation that is granted by the transport rules state that the IC is moving to cause the separation. Only the methods under the IC rules require the IC to move, the method under the transport rules does not, they are different methods.

[Tynskel]

The only ways stated that allow an IC to leave a unit are by the IC itself moving out of unit coherency or having one leave a transport separately. It doesn't say that you can move the unit away to have the IC 'leave' the unit. You have to move the IC to leave, thus using his/her movement rather than the unit's, you can't just move the unit away, then move the IC afterwards. It would pretty much never make a difference unless you want the IC to go in a certain direction and moving that way would still leave him/her in coherency with the unit, which I believe would mean they would be stuck with them.

In this case, however, unit coherency is irrelevant. The rules for transports say the unit can disembark from the transport to separate. This is a new way of separating, different to the ones stated under the IC rules. Thus, I would say that you can disembark the unit, move the vehicle, then disembark the IC. At no point does the separation situation that is granted by the transport rules state that the IC is moving to cause the separation. Only the methods under the IC rules require the IC to move, the method under the transport rules does not, they are different methods.

That's not entirely correct. The rules present *one* method and example for the IC to leave–that is why this is a debate. There would be no debate if the rulebook had explicitly stated that was the *only* way for the IC to disengage from a unit. They do not make the distinction that is the only allowed method.
As I said, what I am demonstrating is entirely *reversible*, and works within the confides of the rules. It does not make a difference the order of movement. There is *no* dependency here. Think about rules with dependencies: who dies first? The order has a dependency, rolls are dependent on the order of operations.

For moving the IC away/to a unit, or a unit away/to an IC is completely reversible. The rulebook *EVERYWHERE* does not explain every available option to play the game. It only explains explicitly when there *IS* an order of operations.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree.
Again, you haven't addressed the fact that you are making an assumption before you read the rules. You are making the assumption that ICs cannot separate from a unit at any time during the movement phase. That's an unsupported assumption.

There is nothing in the rules that says an independent character or unit cannot leave each other during the movement phase that then prevents the other from moving. Simply move the unit and or IC *away* from the other. That's it. No longer attached. The respective opposite unit may do whatever.

It is quite simple, what I have proposed is completely reversible, and works with the rules.
I don't think the method or timing of separation is important to the topic of this thread, except that - as you apparently agree - an IC cannot separate from a unit before anybody moves.

I'm not ready to ascribe to some sort of canon of construction that states that when the meaning of a rule is in doubt, we should prefer reversible interpretations to non-reversible ones. But for whatever it's worth, as far as I know my method is reversible too. Personally, I think that an IC is separated whenever, at the end of the Movement phase, it is not in coherency with a friendly unit - whether that's because it moved away or the models it was formerly joined to moved away, or some other reason. Similarly, I personally think that an IC is joined whenever, at the end of the Movement phase, it is in coherency with a friendly unit, however that situation came about.

But none of this is relevant to the point I'm making about what happens before you can move a unit - in your parlance, the consequences of "activation."


Rest away although I'm not sure what nominating the models to not move has to do with anything in regards of an IC leaving a unit.

It is irrelevant mate, a totally different rule.

All you need to look at is the IC rule which says they can leave during the movement phase by moving out of coherency. No where is it stated that an IC leaving a squad means the squad has moved.
Regarding those consequences, apparently I've been unclear on this point. Perhaps I can be clearer with another illustration.

Let's say I have a five-man devastator squad, four with heavy weapons and a sergeant without. I move the sergeant forward, without breaking coherency (perhaps to get a better shot at a mid-range enemy unit). At this point, I must move the other four members in the squad. Why? Because I didn't declare that they were standing still before moving anybody else in the unit as page 10 requires. When you pick a unit to move, every model in that unit - IC or not, so long as they are part of it - must declare if they are standing still for the entire turn. That has to happen before anybody - IC or not - moves. Anybody who hasn't raised their hands before a single model changes position a single millimeter must move.

An attached IC is no different from the devastator sergeant. Before I move the IC, he is part of the unit. The fact that the IC will become a separate unit during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) his move has no bearing on his status prior to his move, nor does the question of whether Magpie or Tynskel and I are correct as to when exactly he becomes his own unit. If I don't declare that everybody else in that unit is standing still for the turn before I move the IC, page 10 obligates them to move. The fact that the IC is moving away and will break coherency during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) is irrelevant; the point is, the guys he's leaving didn't raise their hands. They have to move. If they did raise their hands, then they have to stand still. Either way, their Movement phase is done.

[Tynskel]

I don't think the method or timing of separation is important to the topic of this thread, except that - as you apparently agree - an IC cannot separate from a unit before anybody moves.

I'm not ready to ascribe to some sort of canon of construction that states that when the meaning of a rule is in doubt, we should prefer reversible interpretations to non-reversible ones. But for whatever it's worth, as far as I know my method is reversible too. Personally, I think that an IC is separated whenever, at the end of the Movement phase, it is not in coherency with a friendly unit - whether that's because it moved away or the models it was formerly joined to moved away, or some other reason. Similarly, I personally think that an IC is joined whenever, at the end of the Movement phase, it is in coherency with a friendly unit, however that situation came about.

But none of this is relevant to the point I'm making about what happens before you can move a unit - in your parlance, the consequences of "activation."


Regarding those consequences, apparently I've been unclear on this point. Perhaps I can be clearer with another illustration.

Let's say I have a five-man devastator squad, four with heavy weapons and a sergeant without. I move the sergeant forward, without breaking coherency (perhaps to get a better shot at a mid-range enemy unit). At this point, I must move the other four members in the squad. Why? Because I didn't declare that they were standing still before moving anybody else in the unit as page 10 requires. When you pick a unit to move, every model in that unit - IC or not, so long as they are part of it - must declare if they are standing still for the entire turn. That has to happen before anybody - IC or not - moves. Anybody who hasn't raised their hands before a single model changes position a single millimeter must move.

An attached IC is no different from the devastator sergeant. Before I move the IC, he is part of the unit. The fact that the IC will become a separate unit during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) his move has no bearing on his status prior to his move, nor does the question of whether Magpie or Tynskel and I are correct as to when exactly he becomes his own unit. If I don't declare that everybody else in that unit is standing still for the turn before I move the IC, page 10 obligates them to move. The fact that the IC is moving away and will break coherency during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) is irrelevant; the point is, the guys he's leaving didn't raise their hands. They have to move. If they did raise their hands, then they have to stand still. Either way, their Movement phase is done.

Ah, but you keep stating that the IC *must* be declared when the unit moves. I am saying no: it is the movement phase, and unless you are keeping the IC as part of the unit, you do not have to *activate* the IC. This is the privilege of being an IC: that ability to be an independent unit, join a unit, or become a super hero unit of other ICs. The point is that you declare that the must is moving away from the IC, the IC has *not* been activated. The rules state you *must* be clear in what is happening.

[Nabterayl]

Right, which I still disagree with. I think I probably disagree with you no matter what exactly you're saying on this one, but help me understand which of the following you are saying:

An IC joined to a squad is a part of the unit but can nonetheless be "activated" (i.e., chosen to move) as if he were his own unit.
An IC joined to a squad is not part of the unit and can therefore be "activated" (i.e., chosen to move) because he is his own unit.
We might have been over this before, but please bear with me as the thread is getting long even for me.

[Anggul]

The Transport rules say: "they can separate by either the unit or the Independent Character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board." It doesn't say the unit leaving affects the unit staying at all.

Either can leave with no effect upon the other. Unless of course you can tell me where, under those rules, it says that the unit that stays behind counts as moving. I sure can't see it, and it's a different rule to the rules used outside of a transport which utilise unit coherency to decide whether an IC is joined to a unit or not.

[SeattleDV8]

This one is circling the drain...heh

Nabterayl,
Let's say I have a five-man devastator squad, four with heavy weapons and a sergeant without. I move the sergeant forward, without breaking coherency (perhaps to get a better shot at a mid-range enemy unit). At this point, I must move the other four members in the squad. Why? Because I didn't declare that they were standing still before moving anybody else in the unit as page 10 requires. When you pick a unit to move, every model in that unit - IC or not, so long as they are part of it - must declare if they are standing still for the entire turn. That has to happen before anybody - IC or not - moves. Anybody who hasn't raised their hands before a single model changes position a single millimeter must move.

An attached IC is no different from the devastator sergeant. Before I move the IC, he is part of the unit. The fact that the IC will become a separate unit during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) his move has no bearing on his status prior to his move, nor does the question of whether Magpie or Tynskel and I are correct as to when exactly he becomes his own unit. If I don't declare that everybody else in that unit is standing still for the turn before I move the IC, page 10 obligates them to move. The fact that the IC is moving away and will break coherency during (Magpie) or at the end of (me and Tynskel) is irrelevant; the point is, the guys he's leaving didn't raise their hands. They have to move. If they did raise their hands, then they have to stand still. Either way, their Movement phase is done.

Thats it in a nutshell, and follows all the rules with out adding ones that are not there.

[Tynskel]

This one is circling the drain...heh

Nabterayl,

Thats it in a nutshell, and follows all the rules with out adding ones that are not there.

I am not adding any rules, either, and I am less restrictive.

[Nabterayl]

You are adding the rule that you can select part of a unit only to move, so long as that part has the Independent Character rule. You have declined to demonstrate how the text of the Independent Character rule requires us to infer this, and you have declined to cite any text stating it explicitly.

[Magpie]

An attached IC is no different from the devastator sergeant.

He is entirely different because he and he alone has the ability to leave the unit when he moves.

[Nabterayl]

How does the fact that he has the ability to leave the unit when he moves alter whether he or not he is part of the unit before he moves?

[Anggul]

I agree that, by RAW, moving an IC away from a squad requires that you either move the squad as well or give up their movement because they have elected to stand still while the IC moves as he's currently part of their unit until he breaks coherency. This will rarely be a problem as you can just move both the squad and the IC at the same time and as long as the IC breaks coherency they're no longer part of the squad. Separation is recognised once the movement has been completed, so evidently ICs are allowed to move out of coherency despite initially being part of the squad, but they have to do so simultaneously with the movement of the squad they're currently attached to.

However:

I don't know why anyone is trying to apply the separation rules for when they're on the field to the separation rules for transports. They're two different methods with different criteria. A squad/IC disembarking and the squad/IC staying embarked says nothing about the one that stays counting as having moved. Only the rules for separation on foot require movement, and that's only because of unit coherency, which doesn't apply when inside a transport.

Nothing in the rules says that, when a squad disembarks and leaves an IC behind, that IC counts as having moved. The rules for transports and the rules for being on the field are different.

[Tynskel]

You are adding the rule that you can select part of a unit only to move, so long as that part has the Independent Character rule. You have declined to demonstrate how the text of the Independent Character rule requires us to infer this, and you have declined to cite any text stating it explicitly.

This is not adding a rule. I am not selecting part of a unit. By definition, the IC may be independent. I am Not activating the IC. If I were activating the IC at the same time as moving the unit, I am declaring that the IC is moving with the unit.

This is a huge distinction, because you can only move one unit at a time. You cannot move the IC and unit at the same time, and have them act separately, because the rules do not let you activate two units at one time. Anngul brings up an excellent example with the transports.

[Magpie]

How does the fact that he has the ability to leave the unit when he moves alter whether he or not he is part of the unit before he moves?

Because it doesn't matter. The rules require him to move first and in doing so he instantly leaves the unit.

[Nabterayl]

This is not adding a rule. I am not selecting part of a unit. By definition, the IC may be independent.
To be sure, an Independent Character may be independent. But that does not mean that an IC, by definition, always is independent. "Part of the unit for all rules purposes" means part of the unit - the rule is plainly that an IC who is joined to a unit is not independent.


Because it doesn't matter. The rules require him to move first and in doing so he instantly leaves the unit.
Unless I have misunderstood your definition of coherency, even you don't believe that in most cases. If an IC is exactly 2" away from the nearest friendly model, and if your definition of coherency is correct, then an IC who moves first will break coherency the instant he moves. On the other hand, if your definition of coherency is correct, the IC does not break coherency the instant he moves in any other case. If an IC is in base contact with a friendly model whose unit he has joined, for instance, he can travel a full 2" before breaking coherency even by your definition. That is a considerable period of time during which a model in the unit is moving.

Anggul, the situations seem analogous to me because a unit that has disembarked counts as moving. Do you disagree with that?

[Magpie]

The IC doesn't have to break coherency to leave the unit, all he has to do is be moving out of coherency.

"by moving out of coherency" not "by having moved out of coherency" not "by being out of coherency"

[Nabterayl]

The IC doesn't have to break coherency to leave the unit, all he has to do is be moving out of coherency.

"by moving out of coherency" not "by having moved out of coherency" not "by being out of coherency"
I can accept that given your definition of coherency. I don't buy your definition of coherency, but I think we've (amicably, I hope) reached the point where you and I have nothing further to discuss in this thread (since I don't think this is really the place to have an in-depth discussion of what exactly coherency is).

[Tynskel]

To be sure, an Independent Character may be independent. But that does not mean that an IC, by definition, always is independent. "Part of the unit for all rules purposes" means part of the unit - the rule is plainly that an IC who is joined to a unit is not independent.


Unless I have misunderstood your definition of coherency, even you don't believe that in most cases. If an IC is exactly 2" away from the nearest friendly model, and if your definition of coherency is correct, then an IC who moves first will break coherency the instant he moves. On the other hand, if your definition of coherency is correct, the IC does not break coherency the instant he moves in any other case. If an IC is in base contact with a friendly model whose unit he has joined, for instance, he can travel a full 2" before breaking coherency even by your definition. That is a considerable period of time during which a model in the unit is moving.

Anggul, the situations seem analogous to me because a unit that has disembarked counts as moving. Do you disagree with that?

May be independent. And, yes, is part of the unit for all rules purposes *if* he's a part of the unit. So, for example, if you want the IC to be part of the unit, the IC *must* maintain coherency, you are not allowed to move the IC *away* from the unit *and* be part of the unit, and visa versa. The instant you don't want the IC to be part of the unit, you break coherency. That's it. A perfectly valid interpretation of the rule.

The rulebook makes it *very* clear: this decision may *only* be made during the movement phase. After the decision is made, the rest of the turn, you can not separate the unit and IC.

I am not adding a rule here at all.

[Nabterayl]

You agree with Magpie, then, that the intent to move the IC out of coherency constitutes "moving out of unit coherency" within the meaning of page 39?

Where, out of curiosity, do you think that I am adding a rule? Or do you not think I'm adding a rule per se, but am simply mistaken in the way I read the rules?

[Tynskel]

You agree with Magpie, then, that the intent to move the IC out of coherency constitutes "moving out of unit coherency" within the meaning of page 39?

Where, out of curiosity, do you think that I am adding a rule? Or do you not think I'm adding a rule per se, but am simply mistaken in the way I read the rules?

You are adding rules by saying what cannot be done. The rules do not state what you are saying.

[Nabterayl]

The only statement I'm aware of making as to what cannot be done are these:

You cannot move a unit until you have finished moving a unit whose move you have begun.
Once you have moved a model in a unit, you cannot fail to move every other model in that unit that you did not declare was remaining stationary for the turn prior to moving any model in that unit (an awkward way to phrase it, but if you're looking for "cannots," I suppose this could be considered one.
#1 is explicit - "Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit." #2 is also explicit: "You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining starionary just before you start moving the other models of that unit."

Are you thinking of something else?

[Magpie]

That's all true enough but it still remains that the IC isn't part of the unit when he moves to leave it.

I guess it is a bit like a difficult terrain test. If your in the open but the last 1" or you move is in difficult terrain you don't take the test at the end of the move you take it before you move, because later in your move you will be in difficult terrain. It could mean that you only get to move 3" which ironically means you don't actually make it into the terrain.

Same for the IC they declare they are moving out of the unit, just like they would declare they are going for difficult terrain.

[Nabterayl]

I suppose that could be the rule. The Difficult Terrain case is explicit, though ("if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain," as page 90 says). As I think often happens when we attempt to make an explicit principle an implicit principle with an allegedly analogous problem, I think that could cut both ways. It's not clear to me that this is an analogy we should be making.

[Magpie]

I'm suggesting that Difficult Terrain proves the rule, rather that it supports the concept that something that actually happens later in the move has game effects at the start of the move and before the move.

[SeattleDV8]

If you are willing to admit the same case, the unit that rolls for difficult terrain 'counts as ' moving , even if it does not move; proves that an IC joined to a unit 'counts as' moving if he did not move with them.

[Magpie]

You can't draw that parallel

The unit attempted to enter difficult terrain but failed or chose not to, so it counts as moving having taken the roll.
The IC can't fail to leave the unit and there is no action other than to actually move.

Also the IC cannot not move with the unit, the rule only allows him to move and leave the unit. If they move and he stays still he hasn't left them so he counts as moving in the same way as any other member of the unit.

[SeattleDV8]

Yawn, come back when you have actual rules.....I am bored with your silly opinions.
You keep making examples that undermind your points.
The IC leaving has moved , by your own words.
The IC is part of the unit at the start of the turn, by your own words.

Therefore the unit must move with the IC, either in or out of coherency, at the same time by your logic.

[Magpie]

Attempting insults doesn't further your case nor your understanding of mine.

[Tynskel]

The only statement I'm aware of making as to what cannot be done are these:

You cannot move a unit until you have finished moving a unit whose move you have begun.
Once you have moved a model in a unit, you cannot fail to move every other model in that unit that you did not declare was remaining stationary for the turn prior to moving any model in that unit (an awkward way to phrase it, but if you're looking for "cannots," I suppose this could be considered one.
#1 is explicit - "Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit." #2 is also explicit: "You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining starionary just before you start moving the other models of that unit."

Are you thinking of something else?

Those are all correct, however, you are implying that the IC *must* be part of the unit. That's not what the rules state. This is the movement phase. You have a choice in the matter. The IC has to be activated for it to move. If you activate the IC *with* the unit, then they are all 1 unit together. If you activate the unit, but not the IC, the IC cannot be activated until the unit has finished its move. If you activate the IC first, then you must finish moving the IC *before* you can activate the unit.

The point is, the rules give you a choice. You must be explicit with your choice. i.e., do not activate the IC and move it, then decide to move the unit back into coherency. That is not allowed, and visa versa (again this is reversible).

[Nabterayl]

Those are all correct, however, you are implying that the IC *must* be part of the unit. That's not what the rules state. This is the movement phase. You have a choice in the matter.
I do so imply, yes. I maintain so explicitly. You propose that an IC can be joined to a unit at the end of turn 1, and at the start of turn 2 - before anybody on the board has moved at all - the IC is not still joined to the unit - or rather, you think that the owning player gets to choose whether it is still joined or not. I think you have correctly drawn out the consequences of that rule. I strongly disagree that you have established that it is a rule, though, and you've declined to give any sort of reasoned analysis of the text upon which you base your opinion. You have declined to say, "These are the words I am looking at. This is why they must mean what I say they mean, and cannot mean otherwise."

I find it difficult to be persuaded by your opinion under these circumstances.

[Tynskel]

I think everyone else, with the examples that have been given, pretty much quote everything that deserves to be quoted. The point I am driving at is that there are many many rules in 40k that offer only one method of many to go about playing. There are very few circumstances in the game where order of operations becomes important.

taking casualties

Casualties is probably the most explicit section in the book. There is a very particular way to do this, and it is immutable.
Almost everything else in the rulebook is not explicit. It is this where the movement rules are open to flexibility, and the examples given are just that, examples. For example, while you are moving individual models, you break coherency, it is just that the final position must maintain coherency. There is immense flexibility in the movement phase.