Yeah, I don't get how he thinks that either; especially when it requires you to outright ignore the IC rule about a unit with an IC moving at the rate of the slowest member. If they weren't a member until the end of the movement phase, then any one could move however they wanted (based on unit type) and no one could lose any special movement USR (as no one would actually be joined until after moves are taken).
Lets look at a similar (yet different) case.
Units embarking in transports [it's like an analogy to IC 'embarking' into a unit]
The embarking, disembarking rules barely talk about unit accually embarked. Just a note about remembering that they are in there.
Right after that they talk about how they can leave. But it doesn't state that they are allowed to stay.
Anyone that states that an IC doesn't stay with a unit every turn (because the rule don't say they get to stay in), should also argue that embarked troops should be kicked out on their next turn because the rules don't outright state that the embarked unit gets to stay.
Which of course would be rediculous. Units stay in transports until they decide to leave. IC count as part of the unit in everyway until they choose to leave.
It is not the combat I resent, brother. It is the thirst for glory that gets men cut into ribbons.
You're always good for a chuckle Old_Paladin. Keep 'em coming. More apples to oranges comparisons would be super but I'll take whatever you can muster.
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
I can definitely see how strictly applying the rules on p48 without stuffing words into the author's figurative mouth isn't coherent.
I mean, at least you can mention that you at least obviously know that what you're arguing makes no sense and you're simply ignoring the fact in your defence. Tynskel and OP don't even see it. Tragic, really.
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
I should say, "strictly applying the rules on p48 to give effect to the outcome indicated by logic and all other GW literature on the subject without stuffing words that cause problematic and absurd situations clearly not intended to arise into the author's figurative mouth" of course.
My bad.
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
You keep saying that, but it's just talk.
I've spelled out my argument. You have yet to point out any flaws in my logic or premises. Your only effort has been to make an assertion which is internally inconsistent.
Keep trying. As it is, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Try tackling my actual argument for a change.
Ok, how is this for a flaw in your interpretation then Bean.
On page 49 in the IC and Shooting, it says the IC "that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit" which means they lose IC status. To be able to join unit, the IC has to first of all be an IC. To get back into IC status, they must leave the unit. So if the IC is part of unit A, then unit A is not allowed to join unit B. The IC would have to leave unit A to get back his Independent status in order to be allowed to join unit B.
So, that's it, then? You're finally admitting that you have no legitimate objection to my argument and are giving up?