Better out than in!

[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.