How many Independent Characters?

[Bean]

Sorry but I'm not letting that one go. My point was you have an incorrect understanding of the rules and are blind to it, so like arguing with a creationist, it is utterly pointless, but I was trying to be polite. Yet I'm actually not willing to let it go after that comments like that.

I have explained the rules from which my position derives. I have shown how they prove my assertions. You have failed to offer any refutation of my arguments.

The IC rules clearly state that he must follow the rules on unit coherency. The rules on unit coherency clearly only apply to one unit, as I have demonstrated.

This is irrelevant, as I've already demonstrated. The rules on unit coherency do talk about single units. So what?

The IC can be part of one unit and part of another, and be in coherency with both, evaluated a unit at a time.

Nothing about the wording of the coherency rules prevents a model from being part of two units simultaneously or being in coherency with two units simultaneously. There is no justification for that assertion at all.

If we are talking about what the 'rules really are' then show me a single reference that says coherency exists between units or one that says you can be part of two units at once. Show me one of those (and not this nonsense you keep trotting out about having followed the correct process for joining units or there is no rule saying coherency doesn;t exist between units), show me an actual rule which says this and I will be admit you are right. I won't admit that, because you cant provide one of those rules because they don't exist.

Page 48:

"In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase."

This rule allows independent characters which are attached to units to join other units.

I presume this lays the matter to rest, as, in the absence of other rules which prohibit an IC from being attached to two units, this rule is sufficient to allow it.

I've actually said this before. If you'd read my post, you'd have known that the majority of the content of yours is incorrect.

If you're looking for a rule that says "an IC can be attached to two units at the same time," of course there isn't one. Of course, if this is a requirement, then no IC can join any unit.

After all, there is no rule that says that an IC can join a space marine unit--or a non-space marine unit, or a unit within 12" of an enemy unit, or a unit composed of more than two models, or a unit composed of less than two models, or a unit outside its deployment zone, or a unit more than 12" of an enemy unit.

In all of these cases--in any conceivable set of specific circumstances--ICs are only allowed to join units by way of the rules on page 48. There is no discussion of specific circumstances at all, except for specific circumstances which prevent an IC from joining a unit. Being attached to a unit is not one of those listed exceptions. Neither is being a Farseer. Or being a Warboss. Thus, Farseers, Warbosses, and ICs which are attached to units may join units by following the rules on page 48.

If your contention truly is that there must be a specific note stating that IC's are allowed to join units while already attached to units, consistency demands that you require a specific not stating that IC's in every other possible set of circumstances are allowed to join units. As the rules list no such sets of specifically permitted circumstances, consistency would demand that you believe that ICs are never allowed to join units.

Do you, or are you ready to admit that you're singling out this particular set of circumstances because of a baseless pre-conception.

[Wildeybeast]

Right bean, lets try a different tack. You are suggesting something that, by your own admission creates massive problems, if not outright breaks the game, is possible. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So please answer me the following questions, with simple yes or no answers and rules quotes to support your point (either explict permission or outright refusals).

1) Do the rules on unit coherency apply between seperate units, rather than the models within a single unit?
2) When joined to a unit, is an IC part of it?
3) When part of a unit, does an IC have to obey the rules on coherency?

[Bean]

Right bean, lets try a different tack. You are suggesting something that, by your own admission creates massive problems, if not outright breaks the game, is possible. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So please answer me the following questions, with simple yes or no answers and rules quotes to support your point (either explict permission or outright refusals).

1) Do the rules on unit coherency apply between seperate units, rather than the models within a single unit?
2) When joined to a unit, is an IC part of it?
3) When part of a unit, does an IC have to obey the rules on coherency?

First off, there's no "onus of proof" that arises from undesirable consequences. Even if there were, I've already proved my position.

Second:

No
Yes
Yes

Feel free to continue.

[Hive Mind]

I think what might be the funniest part of all this Bean is that you're denying that an interaction of rules will create implicit rules, which is a feature of any system of rules anywhere, while simultaneously relying on an implicit rule that is not created by anything other than your strained interpretation of what p48 says.

But that's ok champ, if you keep denying that you're wrong you'll just magically become right even though p48, logic and consistent practice say that you're dead wrong.

[Bean]

I think what might be the funniest part of all this Bean is that you're denying that an interaction of rules will create implicit rules, which is a feature of any system of rules anywhere, while simultaneously relying on an implicit rule that is not created by anything other than your strained interpretation of what p48 says.

But that's ok champ, if you keep denying that you're wrong you'll just magically become right even though p48, logic and consistent practice say that you're dead wrong.

The results of the interactions of explicit rules are not "implicit rules," or at least not in the sense that I was using the term (or the sense in which I thought your camp was using it).

Anyway, that specific point is hardly relevant, since no rule interactions interfere with my conclusion. The rules support my assertion in its entirety, taken separately or on the whole. Page 48 tells me that I can do exactly what I am claiming I can do. No other rule contradicts or modifies the rules on page 48 in a relevant way.

So, no. I'm right. I've shown the rules and reasoning that mandate my conclusion time and time again. I've shown that all of your objections are flawed and baseless. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but if you're not going to offer anything of substance in the future, I'm just going to stop replying to you. If you ever were contributing anything of value to the discussion, you have clearly given up trying.

[Kushial]

I'm just not getting how Bean thinks he's getting around the "must obey the usual coherency rules" on page 48. If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B. The only way the IC can move within two inches of a model in unit B in the movement phase would therefore be if the IC left unit A which gives him the ability to move close enough to unit B to join it thus forming unit B+.

It seems pretty clear cut on the rules to me and trying to get around it just seems like trying to take advantage of someone to me.

[Hive Mind]

The results of the interactions of explicit rules are not "implicit rules," or at least not in the sense that I was using the term (or the sense in which I thought your camp was using it).

I see, implicit rules only exist when they support your case. Handy that, isn't it?

Anyway, that specific point is hardly relevant, since no rule interactions interfere with my conclusion. The rules support my assertion in its entirety, taken separately or on the whole. Page 48 tells me that I can do exactly what I am claiming I can do. No other rule contradicts or modifies the rules on page 48 in a relevant way.

Sure, except for the tiny factoid that they don't and you can only make them do so by importing your own implicit rule based on nothing more than a grammatical stretch while negating the implicit rules created by the express rules on p48.

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that while the rules provide for an IC to join a unit and provide for an IC to leave a unit they do not, at any point, provide for an IC to remain with a unit. Interpreting the Rulebook on a strict basis (which you are claiming to do while simultaneously stuffing your own interpretation into the author's mouth) necessarily implies that an IC joins the unit they're in coherency with every movement phase whether they joined them previously or not. It also provides that an IC can only join one unit per movement phase and that the IC must remain out of coherency of a unit that it does not intend to (or cannot) join.

Your interpretation requires material to be added to the rules. Mine does not.

So, no. I'm right. I've shown the rules and reasoning that mandate my conclusion time and time again. I've shown that all of your objections are flawed and baseless. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but if you're not going to offer anything of substance in the future, I'm just going to stop replying to you. If you ever were contributing anything of value to the discussion, you have clearly given up trying.

I've largely given up trying to offer anything of substance because there is nothing further of substance to say. I have outlined exactly why this doesn't work, given you evidence of the actual practice in 40k and cited precedence for the operation of implicit rules, all of which you've elected to simply ignore because of the implication of one word used on p48.

What is the point in continuing if all I'm going to do is repeat myself? I'm not going to convince you and I've satisfactorily made my case to the others reading this thread. Poking fun at your ridiculous hypocrisy and association with Tynskel is all that's left to do.

So off you pop, my love. You and your little pet can go and play with your nonsense rules and complain that the rest of us don't get it. Meanwhile the rest of us will use the rules that the Rulebook provides.

I'm just not getting how Bean thinks he's getting around the "must obey the usual coherency rules" on page 48. If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B. The only way the IC can move within two inches of a model in unit B in the movement phase would therefore be if the IC left unit A which gives him the ability to move close enough to unit B to join it thus forming unit B+.

It seems pretty clear cut on the rules to me and trying to get around it just seems like trying to take advantage of someone to me.

He's simply ignoring that rule and has been since the second page when it was first brought up.

[Old_Paladin]

I'm not sure where some people are getting this "you cannot be within 2" of another unit" from.

The rules are that:
Members of the same unit must be within 2" of each other
No unit can be closer then 1" from an enemy unit (except for assaults)
No model may pass through, or occupy, the same space as an other model [there must be a gap at least as wide as a models base for it to pass between other models].

Two seperate units can be close to each other (intermixed, in fact).

As stupid as it sounds there is no outright rule that states "an IC can only be a member of a single unit at any given time." Nor is their any rule that outright states" if an IC wishes to join a new unit, they must leave the old unit."
The only rule is that you "must declear the unit you wish to join;" so you could say "while in unit A, I also wish to join unit B."
________________________

That aside,

It's also important to remember that these are a 'permissive' ruleset. We are only allowed to play by rules that are expressly permitted; we cannot make up additional rules or 'fill in the blanks'.
If the rules don't state "a Character may join more the one unit," then you shouldn't play like that.

[Hive Mind]

As stupid as it sounds there is no outright rule that states "an IC can only be a member of a single unit at any given time." Nor is their any rule that outright states" if an IC wishes to join a new unit, they must leave the old unit."
The only rule is that you "must declear the unit you wish to join;" so you could say "while in unit A, I also wish to join unit B."

So on the one hand we must stick to the explicit rules but on the other you're also saying that an IC that joins a unit is a permanent addition to that unit until they leave it despite that not being explicit in the rules.

The explicit rules say that an IC joins a unit in the movement phase regardless of whether they had previously joined it. Because of this and the explicit rule that an IC can only join one unit per movement phase an IC cannot be attached to more than one unit. As a corollary of these rules, and as is explicit on p48, an IC that had joined unit A in movement phase 1 and wants to join unit B in movement phase 2 must move out of coherency with unit A and into coherency with unit B since it does not intend to (or cannot) join unit A.

[Old_Paladin]

Their is no explicit rule that states "an IC cannot be attached to more then one unit."
That's Bean's point.

Also, how do you "not intend to join" a unit you have already joined? How is that even possible?
Unless you're claiming an IC has to join* (and re-join) the same unit each and every movement phase [which also isn't a rule], until it decides to leave.
That's also Bean's point.
If I'm part of unit A, I can move up to unit B (because I do intend to join them); however, I'm going to stay with unit A, because I don't intend to leave them (and am already joined).


Again, I don't think this is how the rules should work. I wouldn't play this way; and wouldn't like an opponent to play this way.
I just understand Bean's point; that the rules are poorly enough worded, that his interpritation isn't an impossiblity.


* please note that the rules also state that once a IC joins a unit, they may not move any further that phase. So if an IC re-joined every turn, the unit would never be allowed to move.