How many Independent Characters?

[Kushial]

Bean, I still think you're ignoring pieces of the rules that clearly show the IC loses part of his IC abilities when he joins a unit. There are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit. Those include 1. leaving said unit he is attached to, 2. conferring or disallowing some of the unit's rules, and 3. count as a separate unit while in close combat. It also clearly shows he DOES count as part of the unit and not as an IC as well such as when he joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and he also counts as part of the unit for purposes of being locked in combat.

The precedent throughout is that once the IC joins a unit, he is considered "part of that unit" until he chooses to leave it. The is listed on page 48 in regards to movement coherency, page 48 in regards to locked in combat and falling back, page 49 in regards to being shot at, etc, etc. Since only an IC and NOT a unit can join another unit, the IC therefore HAS to leave the unit to regain his IC status to join a unit.

[Morgan Darkstar]

We can assume that I am a Geordie...via Rhode Island..... but thats another story.

well if you are ever in GW newcastle and i spot you I will be sure to say hello, assuming of course thats you in the pic.

"hmm that sounds really creepy doesn't it? oh well can't be helped"

[Morgan Darkstar]

I think i drank too much last night!

[Old_Paladin]

My 500th post Wooo! throws crozius in trash. what psychic powers to choose? and where's my dammed force staff?

Congrat's.

Don't hold your breath on the force weapons. I'm still waiting on mine, they seem to be on back order or something (although, I think Eldargal hid them all, so those pointy-ears feel better about themselves).

[Bean]

Bean, I still think you're ignoring pieces of the rules that clearly show the IC loses part of his IC abilities when he joins a unit. There are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit. Those include 1. leaving said unit he is attached to, 2. conferring or disallowing some of the unit's rules, and 3. count as a separate unit while in close combat. It also clearly shows he DOES count as part of the unit and not as an IC as well such as when he joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and he also counts as part of the unit for purposes of being locked in combat.

This isn't really true. you say that there are clear rules set up saying what he can do while in a unit--but that's not how the rules are set up at all. This is how the rules are set up:

There are rules which say what an IC can do period.

Then there are some more rules which modify what an IC can do while he is attached to a unit.

Unless the rules for being attached to a unit specifically modify an element of the IC's default rules, he retains those default rules--that's the way rules work--and none of the rules for being attached to a unit specifically modify the IC's ability to join units.

You're right--he is part of any unit he joins. This still doesn't entail your conclusion, and your conception of how the rules work in this regard is clearly flawed. There is no set of clear rules which completely re-writes how ICs behave while attached to units; this assertion on your part is simply untrue.

What there is is a handful of disparate rules that modify specific portions of an IC's rules while he is attached to a unit--but none of those rules modify his ability to join units.

Since that ability is not modified, it is retained by default.

The precedent throughout is that once the IC joins a unit, he is considered "part of that unit" until he chooses to leave it. The is listed on page 48 in regards to movement coherency, page 48 in regards to locked in combat and falling back, page 49 in regards to being shot at, etc, etc. Since only an IC and NOT a unit can join another unit, the IC therefore HAS to leave the unit to regain his IC status to join a unit.

None of these precedents you cite entail the conclusion that an IC has to leave a unit to regain his IC status.

Again, no part of the rules states or even suggests that he ever loses his IC status.

It is true that he behaves somewhat differently while attached to a unit, but he remains an IC the entire time and his ability to join units is not one of those behaviors which is modified. It is not modified because it is not mentioned by the rules, and only those behaviors which are specifically mentioned are modified by his being joined to the unit.

Your approach is logically backwards--assuming that the rules must re-grant him specific permission to do each little thing that he can do on his own while he is joined to a unit. This is not the case. The rules grant him permission to do certain things, then revoke certain of those permissions while joined to a unit--that is how the rules are structured in this case. And joining units is not a permission that gets revoked.

[lattd]

Okay Bean, is the ability to join a unit a USR? No. Is it an USR with an * beside it? No. As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to. As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules. As he looses this rule while part of the unit he cannot use it to join the second unit and if he were to use it he would have to leave the first unit as they do not have the ability to join the second unit.

Before you say the second unit would not combine with the first, it would via the independent character who would act as the bond.

In relation to the rules not saying you can move a model twice, yes they do, the rules say you move unit A then move unit B you cannot go back and move unit A. If an IC is part of unit A and Unit B as soon as you move one you cannot move the other. Under your rules unit A and unit B are separate units both joined by an IC if you move one you cannot move the other, this then applies to shooting if you fire with unit B you could not fire with unit A as the IC is part of both units and cannot fire twice and both units would count as firing as soon as you role a shooting dice for him.

[Kushial]

You're right--he is part of any unit he joins. This still doesn't entail your conclusion, and your conception of how the rules work in this regard is clearly flawed.

Actually, you're making a leap of logic that isn't supported by anything you've quoted anywhere. You're making the assumption that the IC is simultaneously in a unit and not in a unit at the same time. You can't have it both ways. If he is part of a unit, he cannot join another unit because units aren't allowed to join other units, only ICs can. Unit A+ (say a squad of marines with a librarian) can't join with unit B (some more marines) because two marine squads aren't allowed to join to form a large squad. As long as the precedent within the rules (which is stated several times) that the IC is "part of that unit" and that he has to obey unit rules, then he is clearly PART OF THE UNIT not some nebulous want it to be something else interpretation.

Until you can find a rule that says you're allowed to combine units together, you're just glassing over the one flaw in your logic that you just refuse to address other than saying an IC can join a unit.

[Bean]

Okay Bean, is the ability to join a unit a USR? No. Is it an USR with an * beside it? No. As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to. As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules. As he looses this rule while part of the unit he cannot use it to join the second unit and if he were to use it he would have to leave the first unit as they do not have the ability to join the second unit.

This argument is spurious--and I've already addressed it. We can see the error clearly in your iteration of it, here.

You start by saying:

"As such this ability does not pass to the unit the IC is joined to."

It is true that the ability to join units is not passed to the unit the IC joins. However, you then move directly into:

" As the IC becomes part of the unit he in effect looses this ability, as stated in the rules concerning special rules."

This is not true. The "rules concerning special rules." In fact, your grasp of the meaning of the asterisk in the USR section is entirely backwards. You claim that only USRs with asterisks beside them are gained by units joined by ICs that have them. This is entirely false. Let me quote the actual rule, there, for you:

"The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically lost by an independent character joining a unit that does not have the same special rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an independent character that does not have them."

The asterisk doesn't mark rules that are retained, and it doesn't discuss the transfer of rules at all--the asterisk marks rules that are lost, either by the IC or the unit.

All USRs which are not marked with an asterisk are retained.

Of course, the ability to join a unit is not a USR at all, which renders your entire argument irrelevant on a different level, but the fact remains that you not only offer a bad argument, you offer an argument based on a premise which is specifically contradicted by the rules. This is the second time you have made a claim about the rules which is specifically, unequivocally untrue. Please check your facts more carefully before posting in the future.

Before you say the second unit would not combine with the first, it would via the independent character who would act as the bond.

In relation to the rules not saying you can move a model twice, yes they do, the rules say you move unit A then move unit B you cannot go back and move unit A. If an IC is part of unit A and Unit B as soon as you move one you cannot move the other. Under your rules unit A and unit B are separate units both joined by an IC if you move one you cannot move the other, this then applies to shooting if you fire with unit B you could not fire with unit A as the IC is part of both units and cannot fire twice and both units would count as firing as soon as you role a shooting dice for him.

A point that's been made before and which doesn't constitute an objection to my position.

Again, while I appreciate your willingness to enter into the discussion, it would be much better for everyone if you bothered to acquire at least a basic understanding of the argument and the rules in question before posting. Your arguments do little beyond demonstrate that you possess neither. Simply reading the rules in question would go a long way towards rectifying this problem.

[Bean]

Actually, you're making a leap of logic that isn't supported by anything you've quoted anywhere. You're making the assumption that the IC is simultaneously in a unit and not in a unit at the same time. You can't have it both ways. If he is part of a unit, he cannot join another unit because units aren't allowed to join other units, only ICs can. Unit A+ (say a squad of marines with a librarian) can't join with unit B (some more marines) because two marine squads aren't allowed to join to form a large squad. As long as the precedent within the rules (which is stated several times) that the IC is "part of that unit" and that he has to obey unit rules, then he is clearly PART OF THE UNIT not some nebulous want it to be something else interpretation.

Until you can find a rule that says you're allowed to combine units together, you're just glassing over the one flaw in your logic that you just refuse to address other than saying an IC can join a unit.

I'm really not glassing it over, and I'm not making the leap of logic you suggest.

At no point have I ever claimed that the IC is simultaneously in the unit and not in the unit. Never. I never said that or anything similar to that or anything that entails that.

I agree that the IC is part of the unit.

What I don't see--what you have yet to demonstrate--is how that entails the conclusion that the IC can't join another unit.

My argument is not that the IC is mysteriously both part of the unit and not part of the unit--your decision to characterize my argument in this way is entirely unfounded and unfair. My argument is that his belonging to the unit is irrelevant, and you have yet to present any reason to think otherwise.

edit
Actually, I think I see the reason you're suggesting, and I can show you why it is insufficient.

You are correct in noting that a unit is not allowed to join another unit. The rules don't give a unit permission to join another unit.

However, the rules also don't prohibit a unit from joining another unit--failing to allow something is not necessarily the same as prohibiting it.

Now, if that were the end of the story, you'd be right--you can't do something unless it is allowed by the rules. There're no rules that specifically allow a unit to join another unit, and if that were the extent of the relevant rules, that would be enough to sustain your conclusion.

That isn't the extent of the relevant rules, though. The rules do allow ICs to join other units--and ICs, as you note, can operate as part of a unit.

So, even though the rules don't specifically say, "units can join other units" they offer a means by which units can effectively be joined to other units--through shared ICs.

Your error is in construing a failure to specifically allow something as a prohibition against that thing. The two are not the same, and the rules only contain the former, not the latter. And, though the rules don't specifically allow it to happen, they do specifically allow another thing to happen which can produce that result.

What your argument needs is a prohibition against that result, but no such prohibition exists, and it is not legitimate to construe the absence of a specific rule for joining units together as a prohibition against that possibility in and of itself. That absence would have to be paired with an absence of any other rules which allow that result in order to constitute a prohibition, and it is not--there is another rule which allows that result.

[Kushial]

I'm really not glassing it over, and I'm not making the leap of logic you suggest.

At no point have I ever claimed that the IC is simultaneously in the unit and not in the unit. Never. I never said that or anything similar to that or anything that entails that.

I agree that the IC is part of the unit.

What I don't see--what you have yet to demonstrate--is how that entails the conclusion that the IC can't join another unit.

My argument is not that the IC is mysteriously both part of the unit and not part of the unit--your decision to characterize my argument in this way is entirely unfounded and unfair. My argument is that his belonging to the unit is irrelevant, and you have yet to present any reason to think otherwise.

No, the characterization is not either unfounded or unfair. It is exactly what you're trying to do. You want to create a super AB+ unit that is made up of 2 squads and an IC. Since the IC is part of unit A and you are not allowed to combine squads into a super unit, then A cannot join B regardless of the IC being involved. You're trying to say that the IC is in unit A but doesn't apply toward being in a unit to join unit B by himself. Since he is bringing unit A with him to form unit AB+ though, you're breaking one of the basic rules by forming an illegal squad made up of two units on the table.

Since the units cannot merge, it clearly demonstrates that the IC cannot join a second unit without leaving the first.

Like I said previously, until you find a rule that clearly says you're allowed to combine multiple units, what you are trying to do is clearly illegal under the rules.