How many Independent Characters?

[Hive Mind]

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

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

All dealt with and disproved, where applicable, previously. Do try to keep up.

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

I knew you'd be good for a laugh. Go read it again but this time, think about it.

[Bean]

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

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

I think you guys may be suffering from a misunderstanding regarding the content of the "usual coherency rules."

Let me quote them for you:

When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'

That's the coherency rule. It's on page 12.

This rule requires all of the models within a given unit to jointly meet a certain criteria each time the unit moves. This criteria has nothing to do with other units. It doesn't require or prohibit any relationships with other units.

When you write, "If the IC joins unit A thus forming unit A+, then the A+ unit cannot move within two inches of unit B," this is completely false. There is no rule to this effect. Neither the coherency rules nor the IC rules prevent unit A+ from moving to within two inches of unit B. That assertion is pure fabrication, with no basis at all in the actual rules. An IC does not have to leave a unit in order to move to within 2" of another unit. Show me a rule that actually says that, or quit asserting it as truth.

It seems pretty clear to me that someone is just making stuff up to prop up an otherwise baseless preconception about what the rules should be.

[Wildeybeast]

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

Second:

No
Yes
Yes

Feel free to continue.

I will indeed, though I probably shouldn't need to.
You admit that coherency rules only apply to models in a single unit, not between units, meaning one unit cannot, by definition, be in coherency with another.
You also admit that an IC is part of unit and must obey the coherency rules, which we have now established only apply to a unit and not across units.
Therefore as you cannot have coherency between units, you cannot be in coherency with two units at once and thus an IC cannot be joined to two units at once. Thank you for helping me to establish that.

The only way I can see for you to get round this is to suggest that your your process is still valid and that by joining an IC to two units, they cease to become seperate units and in fact become one unit, thus not violating the coherency rules. I would hope that you would recognise there is no provision whatsoever in the rules for this, either explict or implicit.

Also, ditto everything hive mind has said.

[Bean]

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

Nope, you're still just lying. Your lack of intellectual integrity has gone from disturbing to just disappointing.

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

I'm not relying on any implicit rules. I am and always have been relying on nothing more than what is stated explicitly on page 48, that "In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their movement phase."

This rule, by itself, taken explicitly, is all I need to prove my point. I need not add anything to the rules, take implication from the rules, or ignore any rules in order for this to be true, as I've shown many times now. Honestly, it's like your'e not even trying--you've realized that you have no actual argument, and your preferred response is to lie about my argument. It's sad, really.

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

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

This is a more interesting argument than you've offered before, but still insufficient. The rules don't have to state that an IC remains attached to a unit after it has joined them. This is a necessary consequence of having joined them. Units don't fall apart naturally, and ICs become part of a unit when they join it. They don't leave the unit because of a lack of rules stating that they stay any more than some random bolter marine leaves its unit because of a lack of rules stating that it stays--the rules for units make this clear.

Indeed, the rules spell out the only ways in which an IC can leave a unit, demonstrating that this argument is faulty--though I'll give you credit for trying something new.

I've largely given up trying to offer anything of substance because there is nothing further of substance to say.

I agree.

I have outlined exactly why this doesn't work, given you evidence of the actual practice in 40k and cited precedence for the operation of implicit rules, all of which you've elected to simply ignore because of the implication of one word used on p48.

You have mostly just made up stuff and presented it as rules. Your small smattering of arguments actually based in the rules have been addressed and refuted. You've got nothing. The rules explicitly allow me to do what I'm doing, and your fabrications don't change that.

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

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

Your ability to lie to yourself is cute but sad.

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

No, I didn't ignore that. I addressed it several times and showed that it doesn't constitute an objection to my position. Again, you're just a liar.

[Wildeybeast]

[QUOTE=Old_Paladin;162165

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.[/QUOTE]

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

So just to check, am I understanding correctly that you think Bean is wrong?

[Old_Paladin]

I did, it states that when a character (or unit) ends their movement phase [not the players movement phase] within 2" of each other they become joined [the other member doesn't get to move].

There is also the rule that units with an IC move at the rate of the slowest member.

Seems pretty clear that once an IC joins a unit, they become a single entity. They don't join the same unit every turn; like you suggest.

[Old_Paladin]

So just to check, am I understanding correctly that you think Bean is wrong?

Yes; mostly
I understand his points. The rules do seem to allow it.

But I think they are just poorly written rules; and the normitive style of play (even if against RAW), is the correct way to play.

[Bean]

I will indeed, though I probably shouldn't need to.
You admit that coherency rules only apply to models in a single unit, not between units, meaning one unit cannot, by definition, be in coherency with another.

Not exactly. The coherency rules apply only to models in a single unit. This means that they only check for coherency one unit at a time--it does not mean that one unit can't contain a model that is also part of another unit. The rules can check the first unit for coherency and then check the second unit for coherency, and find both in coherency even if the IC is joined to each.

You also admit that an IC is part of unit and must obey the coherency rules, which we have now established only apply to a unit and not across units.
Therefore as you cannot have coherency between units, you cannot be in coherency with two units at once and thus an IC cannot be joined to two units at once. Thank you for helping me to establish that.

This conclusion is flawed, for the reasons I note above--but it's good that you're going through this analytically. Thanks for helping me expose and explain the error in your reasoning.

The only way I can see for you to get round this is to suggest that your your process is still valid and that by joining an IC to two units, they cease to become seperate units and in fact become one unit, thus not violating the coherency rules. I would hope that you would recognise there is no provision whatsoever in the rules for this, either explict or implicit.

Also, ditto everything hive mind has said.

There is no explicit provision for that, no--and I don't think they would become a single unit, though I think the rules might force them to all move and shoot together in a manner similar to being a single unit. Certainly, as you note, the coherency rules wouldn't explicitly require the two units to be in coherency with each other (though both would have to include the IC in their coherency chains).


Just to reiterate, then: the coherency rules on page 12 read:

When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'


Reading this rule, it is clear that nothing within it prevents a model from being part of two units. This rule simply expresses how and when to check each unit for coherency. It gives a requirement that must be met jointly by all of the models in each unit--but, a model can easily meet this requirement for one unit when that unit is checked and for anther unit when that unit is checked, even while belonging to both.

Hopefully, this will lay to rest the particular argument you suggest.

[Bean]

Yes; mostly
I understand his points. The rules do seem to allow it.

But I think they are just poorly written rules; and the normitive style of play (even if against RAW), is the correct way to play.

As I think through the ramifications of having a character attached to more than one unit at a time, I agree more and more that this should be house-ruled out.

[Wildeybeast]

Not exactly. The coherency rules apply only to models in a single unit. This means that they only check for coherency one unit at a time--it does not mean that one unit can't contain a model that is also part of another unit. The rules can check the first unit for coherency and then check the second unit for coherency, and find both in coherency even if the IC is joined to each.

This conclusion is flawed, for the reasons I note above--but it's good that you're going through this analytically. Thanks for helping me expose and explain the error in your reasoning.

There is no explicit provision for that, no--and I don't think they would become a single unit, though I think the rules might force them to all move and shoot together in a manner similar to being a single unit. Certainly, as you note, the coherency rules wouldn't explicitly require the two units to be in coherency with each other (though both would have to include the IC in their coherency chains).

Just to reiterate, then: the coherency rules on page 12 read:

When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance--but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2". We call this 'unit coherency.'

Reading this rule, it is clear that nothing within it prevents a model from being part of two units. This rule simply expresses how and when to check each unit for coherency. It gives a requirement that must be met jointly by all of the models in each unit--but, a model can easily meet this requirement for one unit when that unit is checked and for anther unit when that unit is checked, even while belonging to both.

Hopefully, this will lay to rest the particular argument you suggest.

Firstly you don't need to need to keep quoting the coherency rules to me when I first quoted it to you several pages ago, I am well aware of what it says. Secondly, you argument might be more persuasive if you tried to not to come across like a patronising arse who is explaining things to a child.

Thirdly, to deal with your sepcific points. No, you do not check each unit when it has finished moving to ensure it is in coherency. Maintaining coherency is part of that move. You don't move a unit, then check to see if it is in coherency and then go 'oh bugger it's not I better move it again/sort it out next turn'. You have to move in such a way that when you have moved every model, they have formed the 'coherency chain'. Any other move is an illegal move. This means the process of maintaing coherency is done throughout the movement, it is not as you suggest some subphase done at the end of movement. As part of unit A and B he has to constantly be in coherency with both, meaning unit A & B have to constantly be in coherency with each other which you admit is not possible.

Fourthly even it was as you suggest you have a problem. Unit A and B share an IC, you move unit A and check for cohernecy. Everything is fine. Then you go to move unit B but the movement rules p11 state "once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit". As Unit A has finished moving and the IC is part of unit A, he can't move again. But as he is also part of unit B, unit B has also moved and thus can't move again. Another ridiculous situation brought about by your reading of the rules.