blaktoof wrote: So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".
Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.
Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.
blaktoof wrote: So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".
Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.
Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.
Blaktoof is correct. The rule is narrowly being granted to the named something. Anything that is named X will be granted that rule. If there was a counter or weapon called Veteran Vanguard Squad it would be granted the rule
So you are not "effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X". Vanguard Veteran Squad just happens to be a unit and the rules granted are those that can actually be used.
However, as stated already, the Formation rules solve this dilemma. They specify that the rules on Formation datasheets are indeed unit rules.
blaktoof wrote: So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".
Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.
Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.
Blaktoof is correct. The rule is narrowly being granted to the named something. Anything that is named X will be granted that rule. If there was a counter or weapon called Veteran Vanguard Squad it would be granted the rule
So you are not "effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X". Vanguard Veteran Squad just happens to be a unit and the rules granted are those that can actually be used.
However, as stated already, the Formation rules solve this dilemma. They specify that the rules on Formation datasheets are indeed unit rules.
Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.
Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.
Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.
So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.
Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.
So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.
You asked what the semantic and logical difference between those rules is and I told you and you cannot dispute it. The rule itself is not a unit rule. It is a name rule - the rule is applied to anything named X.
The Formation rules however make it clear that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, so your argument has the correct answer, just not for the reasons you think.
Blaktoof's argument would win out if not for the Formation rules.
Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.
So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.
You asked what the semantic and logical difference between those rules is and I told you and you cannot dispute it. The rule itself is not a unit rule. It is a name rule - the rule is applied to anything named X.
The Formation rules however make it clear that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, so your argument has the correct answer, just not for the reasons you think.
Blaktoof's argument would win out if not for the Formation rules.
Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.
Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.
I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.
I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.
Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.
I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.
I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.
This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules
that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains
its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound
armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part
of the Formation.
Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.
Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.
Notice though that that rule also conclusively casts the rules in question as "special rules" which leads directly to this rule . . .
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
col_impact wrote:If you start allowing for coherency to be measured between models in play (on the battlefield) and models 'removed from play' (off the battlefield) then you will have the logical consequence that units will be forced to make bee-lines to the side of the table when a model is removed as a casualty.
Moreover, if you do not treat models that are 'removed from play' as not connected to game play then you will have models shooting from the table sides onto the battlefield and using their special rules. This is simply the logical consequence of not disconnecting models that are 'removed from play' from the actual rules of game play.
The only thing there is that enforces that players treat models on the side of the table as different (ie, as dead) are the distinctions the BRB makes between 'play" and 'removed from play'.
So if we follow your line of reasoning, why aren't we drawing coherency between the unit and any of its members that have been removed as casualties? The coherency rules would permit us to.
Also, if we follow your line of reasoning why aren't ICs able to use their special rules or shoot from the side of the table? The shooting rules would permit us to.
Basically, if we follow your line of reasoning we have a profoundly broken game.
So no you do not measure coherency for the IC that is 'removed from play' or allow it access to its rules. If you do so, the logical consequence is that the whole game breaks as you have models in the 'removed from play' zone still interacting with models that are 'in play' on the battlefield.
You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that if carried out logically to other circumstances would break the game.
Same, unsupported argument. Either quote the exact rule that states all Special Rules stop when Removed From Play or shut up about it.
Can you find any claim that an IC removed from play is still in coherency with its unit? These are the conditions in the rules.
col_impact wrote:
blaktoof wrote: So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
You are correct.
If a rule references something directly by name, the word "unit" does not get put in there.
The syntax of the rule is basically 'if something is named X give it rule Y".
The rule uses direct reference by name alone. If there were four things named X (a unit, a model, a counter, and a weapon) then all 4 would technically get the rules and only one technically be able to use it.
The rule expressed this way does not provide the 'case' of the named something. It does not say that this something is a unit.
The rule syntax could actually do something pointless and provide the name of something that could not actually use the rules granted. The rules would still be bestowed but would be unusable.
Okay, and for the case of a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" can you identify ANYTHING other than a unit that qualifies? Context matters and is something both of you are ignoring for this.
col_impact wrote:However, the formation rules do indicate that formations list units and the special rules those units have. So the formation rules do seem to generally provide the word "unit" to the rules listed on the Formation.
If the Formation rules did not provide that catch-all then indeed the rules would narrowly be applied to the named something and not actually to the unit. But the Formation rules do add the word "unit" to the rules in question.
Or, you know, we could actually look for something called that and identify what it is, and see if it applies in this case. Let's see, the Formation lists "1-3 Vanguard Veteran Squads". We know this to be a unit list, so we refer to the unit datasheet called "Vanguard Veteran Squad". This datasheet lists the unit name as "Vanguard Veteran Squad". We review the datasheet and find that it is initially made up of 4 Veterans and 1 Veteran Sergeant. No other "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is listed other than the unit name. We review the book the Formation came in and the faction codex it references, and still find no other entity listed as "Vanguard Veteran Squad".
Therefore, thinking a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" could be anything other than an unit either means you did not do proper homework, or you are being a disingenuous troll? Which do you choose to be, lazy or troll?
col_impact wrote:An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".
This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.
Incorrect. The Rules carried by the unit are applied to the model. The model then carries those rules wherever they go, just as the unit does.
You are still spouting off nonsense here. If Nemesor Zandrekh loses his name because it was replace when attached to a unit, the rules on his ALE no longer work because you no longer have something on the battlefield that is named Nemesor Zandrekh.
I am spouting off nonsense? You are claiming something that I did not say. That is spouting off nonsense and misrepresenting what I said.
Also, you are ignoring the relationship between unit and model. They are not cohabiting levels of relationship in the game. Yes, some units are one model, but that does not mean that they do not have model-affecting rules and unit-affecting rules.
When Nemesor Zahndrekh the unit moves in to coherency with an Immortals unit, at the end of that Movement Phase the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit identity is sublimated by the Immortals unit he joins. The Nemesor Zahndrekh model now operates/counts as a member of the Immortal unit This means you cannot shoot at the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit any more. In order to shoot the Nemesor Zahndrekh model, you have to shoot the Immortals unit.
When the Nemesor Zahndrekh model leaves coherency with the Immortal unit (or it is killed around him), he returns to being the Nemesor Zahndnrekh model in the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit.
Not that you care, you still won't listen and assume I'm saying something else.
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
col_impact wrote:If a rule is narrowly granted directly to a name then it is applied to that name only.
Fine, look at the Veteran Vanguard Squad and demonstrate how many models are called Veteran Vanguard Squad models in it. Using the legend for the datasheet earlier in the codex, we see that there are only Veteran models and Veteran Sergeant models in the unit, and not any Veteran Vanguard Squad models. Therefore, your argument is pointless.
col_impact wrote:Luckily for you and the argument you are making, the Formation rules themselves clarify that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, even when the rules themselves do not specify that they are unit rules.
Oh, the rules themselves are unit rules when it names something that is only a unit. Only people who do not read context or do proper basic research would think otherwise.
Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.
I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.
I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.
This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.
Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.
Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.
If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?
col_impact wrote:If you start allowing for coherency to be measured between models in play (on the battlefield) and models 'removed from play' (off the battlefield) then you will have the logical consequence that units will be forced to make bee-lines to the side of the table when a model is removed as a casualty.
Moreover, if you do not treat models that are 'removed from play' as not connected to game play then you will have models shooting from the table sides onto the battlefield and using their special rules. This is simply the logical consequence of not disconnecting models that are 'removed from play' from the actual rules of game play.
The only thing there is that enforces that players treat models on the side of the table as different (ie, as dead) are the distinctions the BRB makes between 'play" and 'removed from play'.
So if we follow your line of reasoning, why aren't we drawing coherency between the unit and any of its members that have been removed as casualties? The coherency rules would permit us to.
Also, if we follow your line of reasoning why aren't ICs able to use their special rules or shoot from the side of the table? The shooting rules would permit us to.
Basically, if we follow your line of reasoning we have a profoundly broken game.
So no you do not measure coherency for the IC that is 'removed from play' or allow it access to its rules. If you do so, the logical consequence is that the whole game breaks as you have models in the 'removed from play' zone still interacting with models that are 'in play' on the battlefield.
You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that if carried out logically to other circumstances would break the game.
Same, unsupported argument. Either quote the exact rule that states all Special Rules stop when Removed From Play or shut up about it.
Can you find any claim that an IC removed from play is still in coherency with its unit? These are the conditions in the rules.
The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.
If you do allow it, then once a unit loses a model as a casualty the unit must make a bee-line to the side of the table since its out of coherency.
Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.
I am pretty sure you don't play that way. You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that you aren't adhering to in other circumstances.
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.
Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.
I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.
I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.
This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.
Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.
Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.
If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?
The rule says literally if something is named X grant rule Y. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of the rule works and it cannot be disputed. It's just coincidental that the rule is referring to a unit in this case. There is nothing in the rule itself that casts it as a unit rule. The Formation rules cast it as a unit rule.
col_impact wrote: The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.
Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.
col_impact wrote: Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.
Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.
But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.
Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.
Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.
However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.
col_impact wrote:
Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.
Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.
If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?
The rule says literally if something is named X grant rule Y. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of the rule works and it cannot be disputed. It's just coincidental that the rule is referring to a unit in this case. There is nothing in the rule itself that casts it as a unit rule. The Formation rules cast it as a unit rule.
There is nothing coincidental about it. It was deliberately written to address units with a specific name within the Formation. That is because there are two unit names listed in the Formation, the other being Scout Squads. ...On Target is not written to affect the Scout Squads (though it does use them as a requirement), just Vanguard Veteran Squads. Vanguard Veteran Squad name is only a unit name, therefore the rule affects a unit. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of this rule works, and it should not be disputed.
If it was only intended to affect the models specifically with this rule, it would have said, "Models from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike." That would include the Scouts in that, though (riding on a Drop Pod, of course). If it said, "Veterans from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike", it would be leaving the Veteran Sergeant out, and thus leaving them unable to Charge. If it said, "Veterans and Veteran Sergeants from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike", than it would exclude any ICs and members of the Scout Squads from using the rule.
Instead, they chose to identify the beneficiary with a unit name. In so doing, so long as an IC is with a unit named as the beneficiary is "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect", it receives the effect along with it.
col_impact wrote: The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.
Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.
So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.
I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.
col_impact wrote: Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.
Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.
But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.
You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.
However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.
Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.
Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.
However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.
He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.
col_impact wrote: The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.
Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.
So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.
I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.
Incorrect. You are assuming an unstated argument. Read what I stated again. Did I state to measure Coherency off the table? I did not. I asked you if you could prove a model removed from play to be in Coherency. It seems to me that you agree that a model removed from play is out of coherency. Note, that I am not stating the unit goes in to an Out of Coherency state when the model is removed, just that the model is out of coherency at all (and usually cannot return).
Now, actually read what I said and quite accusing me of something I did not say.
col_impact wrote: Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.
Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.
But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.
You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.
However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.
Incorrect. I acknowledge "removed from play", just as I did in the other thread. I just do not subscribe to the effect which you believe this entails because I have no permission or requirement to override the other rules with it when they trigger.
How do you know "everyone else" plays the same way you do? You cannot prove that zero rules a model possess can be used when removed from play. You can only demonstrate what it can do while in play. This is not the same thing. Your refusal to actually read what I have written is reaching trollish levels.
Models Removed From Play have zero reference points to be measured from off the battlefield with any more than when the models are in Reserve. Without that, we cannot properly measure. As you may have noticed we do not have permission to measure from or to models that are not "in play".
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.
Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.
Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.
However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.
He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.
Independent Character is a model-based Special Rule. It does not transfer any benefit from model to unit. This rule allows a model to move out of coherency and become a lone model unit. It also allows that model to join another unit and "count as" part of that unit while joined. It also improves Look Out Sir! rolls.
The "counts as" rule does not bind the IC as an individual unit to another unit while allowing that individual unit to continue to be recognized as such. If this was the case, then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" would not be in force, and I could target said IC out by shooting. Instead, the model which was operating as an individual unit, temporarily sublimates its individual unit identity in favor of the unit's identity it joins. This model then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Either the IC model is considered by the game to be a full member of the unit (albeit temporarily and can remove itself) when something happens to it, or it doesn't. There are no rules to consider it partially part of the unit when any rule affects the unit. Indeed, the IC rules are quite clear that the IC is completely part of the unit when a rule affects the unit. There is no rule or room for any other interpretation except what you choose to write in yourself.
You seemed to think the IC is part of the unit in the Necron Getting Started Formation rule which allows a unit to be returned from Removed From Play, why do you reject this version instead? Because of it actually using a name? The Necron Formation also uses unit names in its rules as well because two of the starting units do not qualify for this benefit, even while carrying the rule.
col_impact wrote: The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.
Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.
So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.
I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.
Incorrect. You are assuming an unstated argument. Read what I stated again. Did I state to measure Coherency off the table? I did not. I asked you if you could prove a model removed from play to be in Coherency. It seems to me that you agree that a model removed from play is out of coherency. Note, that I am not stating the unit goes in to an Out of Coherency state when the model is removed, just that the model is out of coherency at all (and usually cannot return).
Now, actually read what I said and quite accusing me of something I did not say.
You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.
You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.
The logical consequences of both those propositions lead to a broken game.
col_impact wrote: Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.
Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.
But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.
You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.
However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.
Incorrect. I acknowledge "removed from play", just as I did in the other thread. I just do not subscribe to the effect which you believe this entails because I have no permission or requirement to override the other rules with it when they trigger.
How do you know "everyone else" plays the same way you do? You cannot prove that zero rules a model possess can be used when removed from play. You can only demonstrate what it can do while in play. This is not the same thing. Your refusal to actually read what I have written is reaching trollish levels.
Models Removed From Play have zero reference points to be measured from off the battlefield with any more than when the models are in Reserve. Without that, we cannot properly measure. As you may have noticed we do not have permission to measure from or to models that are not "in play".
Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.
Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.
If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.
col_impact wrote:When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.
Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.
Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.
Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.
However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.
He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.
Independent Character is a model-based Special Rule. It does not transfer any benefit from model to unit. This rule allows a model to move out of coherency and become a lone model unit. It also allows that model to join another unit and "count as" part of that unit while joined. It also improves Look Out Sir! rolls.
The "counts as" rule does not bind the IC as an individual unit to another unit while allowing that individual unit to continue to be recognized as such. If this was the case, then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" would not be in force, and I could target said IC out by shooting. Instead, the model which was operating as an individual unit, temporarily sublimates its individual unit identity in favor of the unit's identity it joins. This model then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Either the IC model is considered by the game to be a full member of the unit (albeit temporarily and can remove itself) when something happens to it, or it doesn't. There are no rules to consider it partially part of the unit when any rule affects the unit. Indeed, the IC rules are quite clear that the IC is completely part of the unit when a rule affects the unit. There is no rule or room for any other interpretation except what you choose to write in yourself.
You seemed to think the IC is part of the unit in the Necron Getting Started Formation rule which allows a unit to be returned from Removed From Play, why do you reject this version instead? Because of it actually using a name? The Necron Formation also uses unit names in its rules as well because two of the starting units do not qualify for this benefit, even while carrying the rule.
The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.
Spoiler:
UNIT COHERENCY
When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum
movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models
become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has
finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the
distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and
up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.
The "counts as" rule relaxes in the movement phase and the IC is allowed to exercise his abilities as an independent unit and move out of coherency.
The "counts as" as rule shackles the IC, but it doesn't transform the IC. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".
Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
col_impact wrote: You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.
Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?
col_impact wrote: You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.
Show me where it says this in the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.
Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.
If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.
Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.
col_impact wrote: The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.
Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.
[quote=col_impact 678568 8430020 nullThe "counts as" rule relaxes in the movement phase and the IC is allowed to exercise his abilities as an independent unit and move out of coherency.
The "counts as" is because any attachment to the unit is not permanent, but temporary. When the model with an IC rule leaves the unit, it again becomes a unit of one model. The "counts as" means that when the current conditions are met, they are active and when they cease. When an IC joins a unit, it counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes. When one of the conditions for leaving the unit are fulfilled, it cease to be part of the unit.
col_impact wrote: The "counts as" as rule shackles the IC, but it doesn't transform the IC. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".
If it became part of the unit while not "counting as" part of the unit, it would not ever be able to leave. You keep using this as an argument against me, yet I have not used it. You are either mistaken or a liar. If you continue to use this track, I will consider you a liar.
col_impact wrote: Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
Incorrect. The ALE contains more than unit identity, it covers model identity, stats, Wargear, and Special Rules that apply to the models in the unit. An ICs unit identity is not recognized by the game while the IC is joined to another unit, as it "counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes", not just those rules we want to conveniently remember. Therefore, as far as the game operates, it does consider the IC to be a characteristic profile on the Vangaurd Veteran Squad so long as the IC is joined, but its unique Special Rules would be separated out from the original models of the unit, just as the original models rules would be separated out from the IC's Special Rules.
I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.
Well he has already made one unsupported Jump with his "removed from play" concept, and another when assuming I said "become" when I said "counts as" or "operates as" and then uses the same words I actually used as an argument against it. So, yes, I do think that he is taking extraordinary leaps of unsupported logic to arrive at that conclusion.
One of the key thing I think to highlight is that under special rules it says that "a MODEL is given a special rule by its unit entry or its unit type"
So models have special rules, and as we see, you can many times have models where some have the special rule and some dont. In some cases we are told it only requires one model in the unit have it apply to the unit. In other situations we have things that give the special rule to every model in the unit.
Because on target is listed as a special rule it follows all the restrictions associated with a special rule and is thus not conferred unto an IC unless it says otherwise. The hard part is that the effects being negated are a unit wide effect, not a model specific effect. It is not saying that these models are no longer having this limitation it is saying that the entire UNIT is losing this limitation.
However I think the key thing here is that we have a special rule that confers to a specific unit type, not specific models. So because in this case when an IC joins the unit he becomes that unit for all rules purposes he would get the benefit on ...on target as it gives the rule to a unit, not to specific models. If it said "Vanguard Veterans in this detachment get" it would not apply to the IC but because it says the units get then I would say it can.
I recognize that this is a flip of my previous statement but it seems to follow with how the rules are written.
One reservation that I have is the 'a member of the unit for all rules purposes' and the next paragraph then lists the exceptions. That's hardly 'all rule purposes'
Both sides of the argument have merit, but the final answer can only be found by discussing with your opponent before playing.
col_impact wrote: You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.
Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?
So if you are not measuring for coherency then how are you providing the >2" horizontal measurement required to be able to designate the model 'out of coherency'?
Why are you allowing a special rule to function on models "removed from play" while not allowing a measurement rule to function on models "removed from play"?
Point to the rule in the BRB that says that models 'not in play' are not allowed to be measured to.
col_impact wrote: You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.
Show me where it says this in the rulebook.
You are the one trying to use a special rule on the model while it is 'removed from play'. Do you have permission to use special rules while a model is 'removed from play'?
col_impact wrote: Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.
Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.
If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.
Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.
The measurement rules do not specify 'on the battlefield' or 'while not removed from play' so they provide general permission to models that 'are removed from play'.
So according to your line of reasoning which ignores the designation 'removed from play', a player is free to measure between models on the battlefield and 'removed from play' and have models that are 'removed from play' shoot and use special abilities.
col_impact wrote: The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.
Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.
Incorrect. The IC is not hidden from the IC rules so they are not hidden from ALL rules interactions. In fact this is a critical thing to keep in mind or else the attaching to the host unit is a one-way ticket with no return.
col_impact wrote: Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
Incorrect. The ALE contains more than unit identity, it covers model identity, stats, Wargear, and Special Rules that apply to the models in the unit. An ICs unit identity is not recognized by the game while the IC is joined to another unit, as it "counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes", not just those rules we want to conveniently remember. Therefore, as far as the game operates, it does consider the IC to be a characteristic profile on the Vangaurd Veteran Squad so long as the IC is joined, but its unique Special Rules would be separated out from the original models of the unit, just as the original models rules would be separated out from the IC's Special Rules.
ALEs specifically describe units per the rules. So if an IC actually lost his individual unit status then the ALE could not, by definition, describe him anymore and you would have to look to the ALE of the Vanguard Veteran Squad for a description of the IC.
He is according to you counting as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes so he must now find his model description on the ALE he has permission to use which is the VVS ALE.
The IC would lose the special rules associated with the ALE he just lost since those special rules only apply to models in the unit with the unit name <IC Name>.
That is, of course, unless he retains his individual unit status which would allow the ALE to still describe him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.
Incorrect.
Charistophe is saying that he can use this one particular special rule on an IC while "removed from play" because no rule specifically says it does not apply while "removed from play".
The consequences of that line of reasoning are that all other rules work for a model that is "removed from play" if they lack the specification "does not apply while removed from play".
Movement rules, measurement rules, line of sight, shooting, psychic shooting, assaulting all would work for a model "removed from play" or in "reserves".
So my Catacomb Command Barge that has been removed from play as a casualty still casts its 12" bubble from the side of the table and can shoot at units on the battlefield.
And my units in reserve can just move onto the battlefield turn one if I place them on the side of the table next to the battlefield.
The game breaks if there is no practical distinction between units 'in play' and units 'not in play'.
You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that radically breaks the game. Charistophe does not have a tenable argument.
col_impact wrote: You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.
Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?
So if you are not measuring for coherency then how are you providing the >2" horizontal measurement required to be able to designate the model 'out of coherency'?
Why are you allowing a special rule to function on models "removed from play" while not allowing a measurement rule to function on models "removed from play"?
Point to the rule in the BRB that says that models 'not in play' are not allowed to be measured to.
You have this backwards from what I'm saying. I'm saying that since the model is not on the table and Removed From Play, it cannot be within 2" of the unit. That is what "in coherency" means. If a model is not IN coherency, it is OUT of coherency. Do you understand what I am saying?
col_impact wrote: You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.
Show me where it says this in the rulebook.
You are the one trying to use a special rule on the model while it is 'removed from play'. Do you have permission to use special rules while a model is 'removed from play'?
So, your answer is "no" to this request that asks you to provide proof that a model "removed from play" has basically/unmodified zero access to their rules, like usual? You made a case support it with rules.
col_impact wrote: Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.
Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.
If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.
Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.
The measurement rules do not specify 'on the battlefield' or 'while not removed from play' so they provide general permission to models that 'are removed from play'.
So according to your line of reasoning which ignores the designation 'removed from play', a player is free to measure between models on the battlefield and 'removed from play' and have models that are 'removed from play' shoot and use special abilities.
Nor do they say that models that have been removed from play may measure from off the table. Try again?
col_impact wrote: The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.
Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.
Incorrect. The IC is not hidden from the IC rules so they are not hidden from ALL rules interactions. In fact this is a critical thing to keep in mind or else the attaching to the host unit is a one-way ticket with no return.
So you are ignoring the "counts as a part of the unit for all rules purposes". Good to know. And incorrect again. The MODEL has permission to leave the unit, and when it does, it becomes a one model unit AGAIN.
"Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. They can join other Independent Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"
Do you see anything that is referring to an Independent Character as a unit? I do not. Since it is not referring to the Independent Character as a unit, its rules are not directing a unit to do anything. Remember how special rules are applied? So, it is the model which is allowed to leave and join other units. And while joined, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes", not just the ones we wish to enforce.
So, yes, the IC's ability to operate as, be identified as, or be enacted upon as an individual unit is curtailed, ignored, hidden, and sublimated while counting as a part of another unit. I have zero permission to do anything else.
col_impact wrote: Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
Incorrect. The ALE contains more than unit identity, it covers model identity, stats, Wargear, and Special Rules that apply to the models in the unit. An ICs unit identity is not recognized by the game while the IC is joined to another unit, as it "counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes", not just those rules we want to conveniently remember. Therefore, as far as the game operates, it does consider the IC to be a characteristic profile on the Vangaurd Veteran Squad so long as the IC is joined, but its unique Special Rules would be separated out from the original models of the unit, just as the original models rules would be separated out from the IC's Special Rules.
ALEs specifically describe units per the rules. So if an IC actually lost his individual unit status then the ALE could not, by definition, describe him anymore and you would have to look to the ALE of the Vanguard Veteran Squad for a description of the IC.
He is according to you counting as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes so he must now find his model description on the ALE he has permission to use which is the VVS ALE.
The IC would lose the special rules associated with the ALE he just lost since those special rules only apply to models in the unit with the unit name <IC Name>.
That is, of course, unless he retains his individual unit status which would allow the ALE to still describe him.
And that is why ICs do not get the units' special rules conferred upon them.
But if he retains is individual status in any portion, then you would still be denying the rules for the IC.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.
Incorrect.
Charistophe is saying that he can use this one particular special rule on an IC while "removed from play" because no rule specifically says it does not apply while "removed from play".
Correct, except you got my name wrong. I should also add that the rule itself is never stated to consider being "in play" to be used, either.
col_impact wrote: The consequences of that line of reasoning are that all other rules work for a model that is "removed from play" if they lack the specification "does not apply while removed from play".
Not quite, you described "in play" rather well in the other thread. I just do not agree with the extent you treat "removed from play" since I have zero instructions to do so.
col_impact wrote: Movement rules, measurement rules, line of sight, shooting, psychic shooting, assaulting all would work for a model "removed from play" or in "reserves".
So my Catacomb Command Barge that has been removed from play as a casualty still casts its 12" bubble from the side of the table and can shoot at units on the battlefield.
Incorrect as they all apply to units in play, and we do not have references for units "not in play" for things like measuring.
col_impact wrote: And my units in reserve can just move onto the battlefield turn if I place them on the side of the table next to the battlefield.
Almost as if there weren't already rules covering that part... oh, wait, there are.
col_impact wrote: The game breaks if there is no practical distinction between units 'in play' and units 'not in play'
True. But you have not provided a substantiated definition of what "removed from play" does. You have only presented your opinion. Opinions are fine, but they are not RAW.
No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.
All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).
Take your pick and stick to it!
A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"
OR
B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".
You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!
Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.
Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.
No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.
All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).
Take your pick and stick to it!
A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"
OR
B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".
You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!
Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.
Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.
So, I guess you can measure from off the table since we have no rules stating otherwise.
I will follow the instructions I have, I see no reason to follow instructions that are only made up in your head and only work half the time as well.
No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.
All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).
Take your pick and stick to it!
A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"
OR
B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".
You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!
Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.
Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.
So, I guess you can measure from off the table since we have no rules stating otherwise.
I will follow the instructions I have, I see no reason to follow instructions that are only made up in your head and only work half the time as well.
Do what you like. I will follow the only plausible and tenable rule interpretation that the rules provide. Reductio ad absurdum. As long as logic is an acceptable addition to a RAW argument then my argument is RAW.
Grammar and context do, and depending on the rule so can Maths.
Logic? Rules don't have to be logical as they are written. Indeed, if you are using logic for your arguement in a way that goes against what's RAW it is, by definition, not RAW.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Grammar and context do, and depending on the rule so can Maths.
Logic? Rules don't have to be logical as they are written. Indeed, if you are using logic for your arguement in a way that goes against what's RAW it is, by definition, not RAW.
The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.
col_impact wrote: The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.
The problem is the "special case" is not actually defined in the rulebook with any limits, permissions, or restrictions after it is applied. Not in a case where it involves a permissive ruleset, at least.
I will say it again, I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC's change of status when it is removed from play and is then no longer in coherency with the unit. That is the RAW of the situation, period.
That everyone applies their own definition of how that "special case" defines the limits, permissions, and restrictions would then be a given. Meaning your interpretation is only HYWPI or what you believe the RAI is. Nothing more. It is not even that unreasonable, it just isn't RAW.
col_impact wrote: The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.
The problem is the "special case" is not actually defined in the rulebook with any limits, permissions, or restrictions after it is applied. Not in a case where it involves a permissive ruleset, at least.
I will say it again, I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC's change of status when it is removed from play and is then no longer in coherency with the unit. That is the RAW of the situation, period.
That everyone applies their own definition of how that "special case" defines the limits, permissions, and restrictions would then be a given. Meaning your interpretation is only HYWPI or what you believe the RAI is. Nothing more. It is not even that unreasonable, it just isn't RAW.
It depends on how you view logical analysis and whether that can be added to RAW. If all we do is take straight RAW and throw out the absurd lines of reasoning per a well-formed 'reductio ad absurdum' logical argument its still RAW.
It works both ways. It's not like I can pull a stunt in a game where I start having my dead guys shoot from the sidelines even though I have full RAW permission and justification for doing so.
col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.
So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.
at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.
throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.
_ghost_ wrote: col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.
So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.
at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.
throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.
The lines of reasoning aren't just absurd to me. I have shown using 'reductio ad absurdum' that the rules themselves treat those lines of reasoning as absurd. All that is required is that the players want to play a playable game.
The same kind of argument is used to throw out a line of reasoning as absurd that would require a Formation to exactly list "Marneus Calgar Chapter Master of the Ultramarines" (which is the exact Unit Name) in order to use a Formation listing just "Marneus Calgar".
col_impact wrote: The lines of reasoning aren't just absurd to me. I have shown using 'reductio ad absurdum' that the rules themselves treat those lines of reasoning as absurd. All that is required is that the players want to play a playable game.
That has not been my point, and the point you keep missing is this: Your "logic pattern" is ONLY that, but you claim that they are the Written Rules, and provide no actual written quotations of rules.
Do you understand this?
When I see "removed from play", it tells me it is removed from the battlefield and any rules that rely on the model being on the battlefield cannot be used. It is literally removed from the play of the game. Being 'in play' is synonymous with being 'deployed' from my perspective and logic pattern. Being in Reserves or a casualty is not being 'in play'. Being 'in play' allows for measurements to be made to and from the model and so Movement and Shooting may occur.
But that is just my opinion and perspective. And that recognition is the difference between us.
Hyper literalism (what you are considering RAW) is a doomed enterprise in the context of a system riddled with flaws.
All sorts of easily justified rules interaction can be de-railed on typos or the silliest of pedantic lines of reasoning.
And all sorts of RAW exploits (such as deploying your units out of coherence) exist that quickly derail the game to the point of unplayability.
40k simply cannot be compiled through a hyper literalistic compiler (to use a programming analogy).
As long as you accept as a given that the game is intended to be playable you can assert plenty of conclusions based solely on that given and the rules. You can throw out any lines of reasoning that would lead to a radically broken game.
And, in fact, when people get together and set up the 40k battlefield they operate under that exact social contract - that the game that they are attempting to play is playable.
So hyper literalism operating entirely on its own leads to a game that cannot be played and has no value in a forum about playing the game.
If this were a forum about how to break 40k then hyper literalism would have value in such a forum.
But a RAW approach that starts with the given that the game is intended to played can use well-formed logical arguments to clean out lines of reasoning that lead to a broken game.
And one person's opinion is not the same value as another person's opinion. The person who has the better reasoned opinion has the better opinion. Reason is an agreed value in rule judgments.
A person' opinion that asserts with a well-reasoned argument that a line of thinking can't be followed because it leads to absurd game play is far more valuable than a person's opinion that a rule does not work a particular way because it makes the Tau tougher and they are tough enough already.
col_impact wrote: Hyper literalism (what you are considering RAW) is a doomed enterprise in the context of a system riddled with flaws.
All sorts of easily justified rules interaction can be de-railed on typos or the silliest of pedantic lines of reasoning.
And all sorts of RAW exploits (such as deploying your units out of coherence) exist that quickly derail the game to the point of unplayability.
40k simply cannot be compiled through a hyper literalistic compiler (to use a programming analogy).
As long as you accept as a given that the game is intended to be playable you can assert plenty of conclusions based solely on that given and the rules. You can throw out any lines of reasoning that would lead to a radically broken game.
And, in fact, when people get together and set up the 40k battlefield they operate under that exact social contract - that the game that they are attempting to play is playable.
So hyper literalism operating entirely on its own leads to a game that cannot be played and has no value in a forum about playing the game.
If this were a forum about how to break 40k then hyper literalism would have value in such a forum.
But a RAW approach that starts with the given that the game is intended to played can use well-formed logical arguments to clean out lines of reasoning that lead to a broken game.
This is a forum about the rules of the game as they exist, not how we want them to be. We can include How You Would Play It, so long as we indicate as such, but to indicate unwritten rules as the Written Rules of the game is point-blank lying to any readers of the post. If you want to go to the forum about how you want the rules to be, please look one step below this one on the board list called "40K Proposed Rules".
This is what I do when I run in to situations and rule offerings I don't like or not addressed, I state what the Rule states As Written, and then state that I find it silly, stupid, or useless and indicate How I Would Play It.
Such as when someone says, "I think being able to have an IC charge with a Assault Marine Squad or Vanguard Veteran Squad after they Deep Strike is too powerful, so I wouldn't play it that way." It is perfectly fine statement that offers no argument aside from trying to change opinion.
However, when someone says, "An IC is part of the unit when it gets shot, affected by Stubborn, or is returned from being destroyed, but not part of the unit when they arrive from Deep Strike together and see if they can Charge, and that's the rules", it is disingenuous statement. The person may be mistaken, and in most cases it is taken from a perspective of power and not legality, but after so many quotes on the subject that indicates that is not what the rules state but continue repeating it, they are coming across as nothing but a liar, even to themselves.
col_impact wrote: And one person's opinion is not the same value as another person's opinion. The person who has the better reasoned opinion has the better opinion. Reason is an agreed value in rule judgments.
A person' opinion that asserts with a well-reasoned argument that a line of thinking can't be followed because it leads to absurd game play is far more valuable than a person's opinion that a rule does not work a particular way because it makes the Tau tougher and they are tough enough already.
Not necessarily. One person's opinion can be quite reasonable and logical, but still not supported by the rules, or as equally reasonable as another person's opinion.
I think it is unreasonable for a unit to have all its weapons fire at the exact same target when some of those weapons are not fit to be used on that target, yet those are the rules. Being reasonable is fine, but RAW also requires it to be Written (it's part of the name after all).
_ghost_ wrote: col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.
So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.
at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.
throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.
Col_Impact already admitted in another thread that he ignores rules that he thinks go against his stance even if they are RAW.
_ghost_ wrote: col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.
So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.
at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.
throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.
Col_Impact already admitted in another thread that he ignores rules that he thinks go against his stance even if they are RAW.
Context? What rule are you talking about and based on what argument am I ignoring it? I will happily justify my reasons for doing so if you like.
RAW you get to add Spyders to the unit of 1 Spyder in the Canoptek Harvest, but last I checked you ignore that.
RAW a scarab unit of 9 scarabs in the Retribution Phalanx that has its unit size increased to 12 by Spyders returns to play with 12 scarabs, but last I checked you ignore that.
nosferatu1001 wrote: What is the starting size of the scarab unit? Pretend it isn't fearless, and was falling back.
Does it regroup normally at 3 models, or at 4?
It does not regroup normally at 3 models. It regroups normally at 4 models. The Spyder rule has added scarab bases to the unit and taken the unit size beyond the starting size, per the Spyder rule. If you somehow think you have a unit size of 9 then you are not obeying the Spyder rule "to take the unit beyond its starting size". Real straightforward.
nosferatu1001 wrote: What is the starting size of the scarab unit? Pretend it isn't fearless, and was falling back.
Does it regroup normally at 3 models, or at 4?
It does not regroup normally at 3 models. It regroups normally at 4 models. The Spyder rule has added scarab bases to the unit and taken the unit size beyond the starting size, per the Spyder rule. If you somehow think you have a unit size of 9 then you are not obeying the Spyder rule "to take the unit beyond its starting size". Real straightforward.
This is a different subject entirely to the topic of this thread. If either of you want to go over it, AGAIN, start another thread. Otherwise, unless you plan on directing this to how Detachment Special Rules, Units, and ICs interact, leave it to PMs.
The rules provide an answer to the question of the thread.
The formation rules are indisputably unit special rules and there is no specification to include the IC.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
_ghost_ wrote: But then we still have the problem that a special rule targets the Unit as a whole. and while joined a IC is in fact a part of said unit.
That's a problem that the rule resolves. It says the IC does not get the special rule. Real straightforward. On what basis are you saying the issue has not been fully resolved ?
col_impact wrote: The rules provide an answer to the question of the thread.
The formation rules are indisputably unit special rules and there is no specification to include the IC.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Only by ignoring the noted exception of the Stubborn is this 100% factual.
So, either Stubborn does not work in preventing a joined IC's Leadership to be reduced, or some unit rules will affect ICs when they are joined just like stubborn.
_ghost_ wrote: But then we still have the problem that a special rule targets the Unit as a whole. and while joined a IC is in fact a part of said unit.
That's a problem that the rule resolves. It says the IC does not get the special rule. Real straightforward. On what basis are you saying the issue has not been fully resolved ?
"Does not get" does not mean "does not benefit", though. Two different rules with two different meanings. And ignores the stipulation that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Either the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, which includes detachment special rules affecting a unit just like Stubborn, Fearless, etc., or it does not count as part of the unit for all rules purposes and puts a lie to this rule.
It looks like you are trying to use a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument to go against plainly stated rules. That's a wonderful bit of irony.
The rule only uses Stubborn as an example. The rule requires that the IC be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule that would logically include him.
The Stubborn rule has the specific language "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." which logically includes attached ICs
Even if the example did not for some reason work, the rule is not dependent on the example actually being pertinent. So a debate over Stubborn is not relevant to the discussion of the rule.
The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC. The rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.
Confer means 'grant benefit' so the IC cannot benefit from the formation special rule.
He may benefit from the rule without being granted e rule.
Huh? You listed a definition that proves my correct use of the word. If you are going to participate in this thread you are required to use English correctly.
The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC (such as "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."). The IC rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.
Unless someone can point to a specific clause (such as "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."), the RAW is exceedingly clear here folks.
col_impact wrote: It looks like you are trying to use a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument to go against plainly stated rules. That's a wonderful bit of irony.
No, I stated the written rules. Then I stated what is considered when you don't follow the written rules. A difference.
col_impact wrote: The rule only uses Stubborn as an example. The rule requires that the IC be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule that would logically include him.
Not really an example when it states "as in Stubborn". That actually makes it a reference, a guide, as it were, not just an example.
But yes, the IC would have to be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule to include him, AS IN STUBBORN.
col_impact wrote: The Stubborn rule has the specific language "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." which logically includes attached ICs
Yes, a unit does include attached models when a rule affects it, what a coincidence.
Or were you talking about "contains at least one model"? Why leave out the other condition if you're going to include the first? Why not require Slow and Purposeful units to ignore moving in the Movement Phase for Shooting only if they are taking a Morale and Pinning Test?
Also can you demonstrate how a unit can still exist and have zero models in the unit with the rule the Detachment gives it?
col_impact wrote: Even if the example did not for some reason work, the rule is not dependent on the example actually being pertinent. So a debate over Stubborn is not relevant to the discussion of the rule.
It actually is, as I referenced above.
col_impact wrote: The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC. The rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.
It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.
col_impact wrote: Confer means 'grant benefit' so the IC cannot benefit from the formation special rule.
Actually, you're half right, Confer means to either grant, bestow, or have a discussion with. It does not automatically consider benefit in the situation, the context of the sentence must be taken in consideration. As in, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
And then can you show me how Stubborn confers to an IC that doesn't invalidate your argument?
It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.
You can't ignore the rule and call it RAW. The Formation rule make absolutely no specification while the Stubborn rule does. You are simply being willfully obtuse and your approach has no RAW merit and is unreasoned.
Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.
You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."
You have to then look at the formation rule for any thing that looks similar.
The formations rules lack any such clause or any similarly worded clauses.
The benefit/effect of the rule does not confer.
Super simple RAW. You are missing the requisite clause (or similar clause) in the formation rule.
The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.
The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.
And how is that different from the unit ignoring the restriction on charging after arriving via deep strike? Shouldn't that still include the attached IC? I fail to see the difference.
It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.
You can't ignore the rule and call it RAW. The Formation rule make absolutely no specification while the Stubborn rule does. You are simply being willfully obtuse and your approach has no RAW merit and is unreasoned.
You are correct, I cannot ignore the rule and call it RAW, but I must consider ALL rules, not just one tight interpretations of one sentence and ignoring the rest.
Stubborn says absolutely nothing about Independent Characters, yet it is the standard by which Special Rules are conferred between IC and unit. The phrase "Independent Character" is never mentioned at all. The only way it could be specifically be including the "Independent Character" is if we take the previously stated rule of "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." for its literal word in what it means. Because if the IC is part of the unit, it counts as one of the models in the unit to provide the benefit, in addition, the IC's Leadership is often considered the unit's Leadership due to being the highest available to it (though, not always).
It is all these factors which play in to the IC receiving the benefit of Stubborn, Fearless, Objective Secured, First the Fire Then the Blade, and ...On Target.
It is only by deliberately dismissing a rule and ignoring the context of the standard that you can have a double standard of allowing a Blood Angel Chaplain to provide Zealot to joined a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad, while at the same time denying them the ability to Charge the same turn they arrive from Deep Strike.
col_impact wrote: Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.
I have. Stubborn affects a unit. ICs count as part of the unit. Pretty simple, yes?
col_impact wrote: You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."
There is absolutely nothing stating the specific clause "that contains at least one model" is any more important to fulfilling this desire as "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". Indeed, this is a paper argument with no support. While I agree in spirit, as a unit cannot access any special rule unless at least one of its models possesses it in some fashion as well, it is unacceptable as the literal milestone without a specifically addressed line stating, "Unless specifically specified, buy stating 'at least one model with this special rule', the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
col_impact wrote: You have to then look at the formation rule for any thing that looks similar.
You mean like referring to the unit receiving the benefit? And that the unit would have to have at least one model with this rule in order to even be considered either that unit or a unit from this Formation? What a thought.
col_impact wrote: The formations rules lack any such clause or any similarly worded clauses.
The benefit/effect of the rule does not confer.
Super simple RAW. You are missing the requisite clause (or similar clause) in the formation rule.
Only by ignoring or dismissing numerous other rules as written are you managing to do this. One cannot call it RAW by ignoring the context of everything connected to it. Unless by "simple RAW" you mean, "only the specific line and not connecting any context to what the rule connects with outside if itself." At which point, you would be correct.
The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.
And how is that different from the unit ignoring the restriction on charging after arriving via deep strike? Shouldn't that still include the attached IC? I fail to see the difference.
Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?
"that contains at least one model with . . . "
The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
If you want to house rule that you get to ignore that rule, that is fine.
However, the rules themselves are exceedingly clear.
col_impact wrote: Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?
"that contains at least one model with . . . "
The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
You're right, I do NOT see that clause anywhere in this rule you just quoted.
col_impact wrote: Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.
I have. Stubborn affects a unit. ICs count as part of the unit. Pretty simple, yes?
That's not specific language. The rule requires you to point to specific language in the Stubborn rule that allows coverage to apply to the IC. You are being disingenuous and it's obvious.
You are required to point to specific instructions in Stubborn that allow coverage to apply to the IC. Pointing to something that is generic of all special rules is not pointing to a specific instruction in Stubborn.
So do what the rule asks you to do. Find the specific language that is in Stubborn and apply that. You cannot ignore the rule. It is exceedingly clear what it asks you to do.
col_impact wrote: You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."
There is absolutely nothing stating the specific clause "that contains at least one model" is any more important to fulfilling this desire as "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". Indeed, this is a paper argument with no support. While I agree in spirit, as a unit cannot access any special rule unless at least one of its models possesses it in some fashion as well, it is unacceptable as the literal milestone without a specifically addressed line stating, "Unless specifically specified, buy stating 'at least one model with this special rule', the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Cool, so your answer is that only rules that say "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" will confer to ICs. Feel free to apply that. That won't let the formation rules in question work either and people will correct you on your poor choice of clause selection as it breaks the ability to apply any special rules other than Stubborn to ICs.
When you notice that you have attended to the wrong clause in the Stubborn rule (since it leads to absurd consequences that break the game), you will revisit the rule.
Eventually you will settle on "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." as the only plausible portion of the Stubborn rule that could apply. Reductio ad absurdum.
The rules require you to find the specific language in the Stubborn rule and apply it as a litmus test. You cannot choose to fail to find unless you want to say feth all to the rule and house rule it.
col_impact wrote: Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?
"that contains at least one model with . . . "
The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
You're right, I do NOT see that clause anywhere in this rule you just quoted.
You are just being disingenuous.
Feel free to point to some other clause in the Stubborn special rule that qualifies as language that specifically applies the rule in such a way as to encompass the IC.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
To help you out,I have marked in red the only clause that could plausibly apply and I marked in yellow the portions of the rule that could not plausibly apply.
The rule requires you to find the clause and apply it. Obey the rule.
Yes, I'm obeying the rule that the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, so when the rule states the unit may charge, the unit may charge. It's literally that simple
Oh and confer is grant. Not grant benefit, as you claimed. Note the parens? It's giving an example of what is meant by grant instead a bursary or similar monetary sum.
col_impact wrote: That's not specific language. The rule requires you to point to specific language in the Stubborn rule that allows coverage to apply to the IC. You are being disingenuous and it's obvious.
You are required to point to specific instructions in Stubborn that allow coverage to apply to the IC. Pointing to something that is generic of all special rules is not pointing to a specific instruction in Stubborn.
So do what the rule asks you to do. Find the specific language that is in Stubborn and apply that. You cannot ignore the rule. It is exceedingly clear what it asks you to do.
No, it does not. It has to specifically state, not use specific language, there is a distinct difference.
And Stubborn mentions nothing about granting anything to any model, much less Independent Characters.
col_impact wrote: Cool, so your answer is that only rules that say "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" will confer to ICs. Feel free to apply that. That won't let the formation rules in question work either and people will correct you on your poor choice of clause selection as it breaks the ability to apply any special rules other than Stubborn to ICs.
No, I am stating that is YOUR answer. Again, specific language is never noted in the Independent Characters and Special Rules section.
col_impact wrote: When you notice that you have attended to the wrong clause in the Stubborn rule (since it leads to absurd consequences that break the game), you will revisit the rule.
You have limited yourself to one clause of specific language, not I.
col_impact wrote: Eventually you will settle on "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." as the only plausible portion of the Stubborn rule that could apply. Reductio ad absurdum.
The rules require you to find the specific language in the Stubborn rule and apply it as a litmus test. You cannot choose to fail to find unless you want to say feth all to the rule and house rule it.
Yes, you are being absurd in this. No, it does not require specific language, it just has to specifically state it as in the Stubborn rule. Deep Strike does not state this, does a joined IC disallow a unit to Deep Strike then? How about Fleet? Is an IC affected by Blind (another referenced rule, by the way) when the unit is in affected by it?
Nothing is specifically stated about Independent Characters in the Stubborn rule. It is only when we consider the aforementioned rule that an IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes do we see that the Independent Character is specifically stated because they are counting as part of that unit for all rules purposes, and Stubborn only specifically states a unit as being a target.
Feel free to point to some other clause in the Stubborn special rule that qualifies as language that specifically applies the rule in such a way as to encompass the IC.
Nope, I am being accurate. No specific language is required, it just needs to be specifically stated as in the Stubborn Special Rule, which only specifically states the unit benefiting. Otherwise, Blind would not work as directed nor would Fleet or Deep Strike. One always needs to keep perspective in mind.
Does the Formation rule fulfill the same requirements? Let's see.
Formation rules are applied to the units which then apply them to the models at the point the army list is finalized. This means a Marine in the Vanguard Veteran Squad from said Formation has the ...On Target rule. So long as the unit "Vanguard Veteran Squad" from this Formation exists, there will always be "one model with this special rule" in this unit. As soon as there are no "models with this special rule" in the unit, the unit is effectively destroyed, as the IC returns to being its own unit at the start of the next phase.
Since you have a hard time actually understanding what I'm saying, (I know my logic paths are often less walked, but you refuse to even notice the trail), let me introduce two different scenarios.
Scenario setup: A Jump Chaplain from a Battle Demi-Company Formation has joined the Vanguard Veteran Squad with Jump Packs from the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation in Deep Strike Reserves. The Chaplain carries the USRs: Zealot and Independent Character; Army Special Rule: Chapter Tactics; and Formation Special Rules: Objective Secured (Demi-Company) and Tactical Flexibility. The Vanguard Veteran Squad carries the USR: And They Shall Know No Fear; Datasheet Special Rule: Heroic Intervention; Army Special Rules: Combat Squad and Chapter Tactics; and the Formation Special Rules: On Time... and ...On Target. And the unit arrives from Deep Strike. There is a unit within 6" of the Deep Strike target on an Objective, with Dangerous Terrain between the Vanguard Veteran Squad Deep Strike Target and this unit. This unit does not have Objective Secured.
Scenario 1: The Vanguard Veteran Squad Deep Strikes in to Dangerous Terrain because of Scatter (no Shadowstrike Scout Squads nearby). Very poor rolling leads to every single Veteran and the Veteran Sergeant removed as casualties, but leaves the Chaplain alone. At the beginning of the Psychic Phase, the Chaplain no longer counts as part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad and returns to being a Chaplain model in a Chaplain unit. The Chaplain automatically passes the Morale Check from such a loss, due to Zealot. The Chaplain no longer counts as being part of a Vanguard Veteran Squad from the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation, and so is unable to Charge. However, he is now part of a unit from the Battle Demi-Company with Objective Secured which allows all its units to control Objectives even if someone is closer, and if he is close enough to the Objective, will Hold it despite being unable to Charge.
Scenario 2: The Vanguard Deep Strikes in and avoids failing the Dangerous Terrain tests. At the beginning of the Assault Phase, they are a Vanguard Veteran Squad which has arrived from Deep Strike that turn, and so are permitted to Charge. They Charge, Combat occurs, and neither unit is destroyed and both stay there. The Objective stays Contested, though. The Chaplain is not counting as part of a unit from the Demi-Company at this time, so his Objective Secured rule is unusable so long as he is joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
The IC rule requires you to find the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the rule to specifically incorporate the IC.
So keep looking until you find it. You are not allowed to fail to find. Keep staring at the rule until you find the clause. You can do it.
Here is a list of how the IC is affected in the rules you mentioned and how you are supposed to resolve the conferring of the rule to the IC (according to my argument).
Blind - affects "all models in the unit"; Blind confers to IC
Fleet - "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"; Fleet does not confer to IC. A unit with Fleet that has a non-Fleet IC attached cannot use Fleet.
Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule"; Deep Strike does not confer to IC. A unit with DS that has a non-DSIC attached cannot use DS.
Stubborn - "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"; Stubborn confers to IC
Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).
Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC
Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC
Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC
Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC
In fact, any and all unit rules are conferred to the IC per your argument! All unit rules would meet the minimum of your read of the Stubborn rule requirement (affect "a unit").
According to your argument, the IC rule "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" trumps all other rules, including the IC rule that is specifically about Special Rules and acts at the same level as the "counts as" rule.
So, according to your argument, an IC (that has neither Fleet or Deep Strike) attached to a unit with Fleet or Deep Strike would be granted Fleet and Deep Strike per the "counts as" rule.
Also, non-Jump and non-Jet Pack ICs would be granted Jump and Jet Pack rules by simply being joined to units that are Jump and Jet Pack.
Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.
However, your argument is false. Since the IC rule about Special Rules acts at the same level, it has the power to provide exceptions to the "counts as" rule. You cannot dispute this. So keep looking at the Stubborn rule until you find the part that incorporates the IC. All you have to do is stop acting helpless and read the rule.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
col_impact wrote: The IC rule requires you to find the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the rule to specifically incorporate the IC.
So keep looking until you find it. You are not allowed to fail to find. Keep staring at the rule until you find the clause. You can do it.
That is not in dispute. Reread my argument.
col_impact wrote: Here is a list of how the IC is affected in the rules you mentioned and how you are supposed to resolve the conferring of the rule to the IC (according to my argument).
Blind - affects "all models in the unit"; Blind confers to IC
Fleet - "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"; Fleet does not confer to IC. A unit with Fleet that has a non-Fleet IC attached cannot use Fleet.
Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule"; Deep Strike does not confer to IC. A unit with DS that has a non-DSIC attached cannot use DS.
Stubborn - "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"; Stubborn confers to IC
Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).
Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC
Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC
Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC
Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC
In fact, any and all unit rules are conferred to the IC per your argument! All unit rules would meet the minimum of your read of the Stubborn rule requirement (affect "a unit").
What a strange thought because that would be correct for those rules that target a unit with an effect. But all requirements still need to be taken in to account as well. An IC is considered part of the unit when determining Fleet and Deep Strike capability as well as participating with them. Why is this is a difficult concept for you?
col_impact wrote: According to your argument, the IC rule "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" trumps all other rules, including the IC rule that is specifically about Special Rules and acts at the same level as the "counts as" rule.
No, this is not a trump, its just that you don't have anything that actually counters it. You do not have anything to exempt the IC from being considered part of the unit when it is affected by a special rule. You are confusing possession with affection.
col_impact wrote: So, according to your argument, an IC (that has neither Fleet or Deep Strike) attached to a unit with Fleet or Deep Strike would be granted Fleet and Deep Strike per the "counts as" rule.
Also, non-Jump and non-Jet Pack ICs would be granted Jump and Jet Pack rules by simply being joined to units that are Jump and Jet Pack.
Incorrect, as I have already stated. See, you know nothing about my argument. Reread what I have written in the earlier parts of this thread. ICs are considered part of the unit, both for determining "all models in the unit" and when "the unit" rerolls its run, or is declared to be in Deep Strike, and participating in the event. Or are you saying they be left behind because the IC is still its own unit?
col_impact wrote: Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.
All I see is you still failing to understand the difference between grant and affect and then taking it to ridiculous extremes.
Wraithflight would not qualify as it is not a unit affecting rule
"Wraithflight: When moving, Canoptek Wraiths can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground. However, they cannot end their move on top of other models and can only end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the models on top of it."
Now, I know you have a hard time differentiating between model and unit, so I will explain. There are two types of entities that exist called "Canoptek Wraiths", one is a model and one is a unit. Wraithflight does not state that allows Canoptek Wraith Units to move over all other models, just Canoptek Wraiths. Now, remember, if a rule does not specifically address a unit, it is not affecting a unit. Since there are two entities which fall under this name, but no mention of unit, it defaults to being the models that are affected.
A point I referenced before, I believe.
col_impact wrote: However, your argument is false. Since the IC rule about Special Rules acts at the same level, it has the power to provide exceptions to the "counts as" rule. You cannot dispute this. So keep looking at the Stubborn rule until you find the part that incorporates the IC. All you have to do is stop acting helpless and read the rule.
Yes, indeed, read the actual rule. While you are at it, read what people have said regarding this. The most interesting part of this discussion is the same arguments that require ignoring what the rules actually say, not just what they want it to say.
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?
Here is are a couple rules for you to reference for an interesting interaction:
"Counter-attack If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.
If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect."
Now, the IC is part of the unit, and will be part of the reaction of the unit. But, unless he possesses the Coutner-Attack rule himself, he will not get the bonus. But it seems that according to your standard, the IC would indeed get the bonus.
"Move Through Cover A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra D6 when rolling to move through difficult terrain and is not slowed by charging through difficult terrain. In most circumstances, this will mean that, when moving, the unit rolls 3D6 and picks the highest roll. Furthermore, a model with the Move Through Cover special rule automatically passes Dangerous Terrain tests."
In this case, we have a rule that is both a unit-affecting rule and a model-affecting rule. An IC without MTC that is joined to a unit with MTC will benefit from being able to move with the extra die on the roll through difficult terrain or when Charging through it. However, if the IC moves through Dangerous Terrain while in the unit, he does not get to automatically pass the Dangerous Terrain test.
Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).
Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC - The effect of Blind, not the Special Rule, clearly confers to ICs. It's even mentioned within the Ongoing Effects paragraph on ICs interacting with it.
Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" clearly states that only units which consist exclusively of models with Fleet are able to benefit from this special rule
Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC "all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule" - it's clearly not usable if you join a unit of models with DS with an IC without DS. It clearly states that the entire unit cannot benefit from the rule if not all models possess it.
Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC ´"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule " this obviously works as long as you have a single model with Stubborn.
You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different, I'll try to put it in sentence:
If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.
This is perfectly in line with the rules as written, based on the "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects" section. Note how it speaks of a "beneficial or harmful effect, such as bestowed by the Blind special rule".
The argument for the other side is that in order to be affected by a Special Rule the IC must possess it or it must be made abundantly clear than an IC gains the Special Rule when joining, and for "abundantly clear" pretty much the only wording considered sufficient is "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
So this entire shitfest of a thread can be boiled down to:
Is the effect of a Special Rule (eg "being blinded" or "being able to charge after deep striking" or "not reducing Ld checks by number of lost models") to be treated via the "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects" or via the "Special Rules" section of the Intependent Character special rule?
I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?
col_impact wrote: Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.
All I see is you still failing to understand the difference between grant and affect and then taking it to ridiculous extremes.
Wraithflight would not qualify as it is not a unit affecting rule
"Wraithflight: When moving, Canoptek Wraiths can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground. However, they cannot end their move on top of other models and can only end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the models on top of it."
Now, I know you have a hard time differentiating between model and unit, so I will explain. There are two types of entities that exist called "Canoptek Wraiths", one is a model and one is a unit. Wraithflight does not state that allows Canoptek Wraith Units to move over all other models, just Canoptek Wraiths. Now, remember, if a rule does not specifically address a unit, it is not affecting a unit. Since there are two entities which fall under this name, but no mention of unit, it defaults to being the models that are affected.
A point I referenced before, I believe.
Why don't you reference the actual rules on this issue? There is no rule in the BRB that says you default to referring to a model as opposed to unit. You made that up. Here are the actual rules.
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.
So is the IC a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, yes or no? If yes (and you cannot choose no), then according to your argument, the IC gets Wraithflight.
Spoiler:
6. Unit Type: This refers to the unit type rules in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. For
example, a unit may be classed as Infantry, Cavalry or Vehicle, which will subject it to a
number of rules regarding movement, shooting, assaults, etc.
So, is the IC that is attached to a unit of Canoptek Wraiths part of the unit that is classed as Beast? If it's part of a unit that is classed as Beast then the "counts as" clause causes it to have all the associated rules granted to it, according to your argument.
Spoiler:
Beasts have the Fleet special rule.
So there is a clear chain of permission according to your argument for an Overlord to have Wraithflight and Fleet. Awesome!
Your argument is premised on ignoring rules however, so it is not RAW. You keep flat out ignoring the IC rule regarding Special Rules.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Point to the exact words in the Stubborn rule that allow the Stubborn rule to be specifically conferred to the IC.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
You have to fulfill the rule. So point to the exact words that allow the Stubborn rule to be specifically conferred to the IC.
Exact quote, please.
Charistoph wrote:And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?
The application of the Special Rule to the IC is denied because it does not have the wording "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", per the IC Special Rules rule. It requires that wording in order to be specifically applied to the IC.
I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?
Huh? You are wildly confused here about Blind. Blind is a special rule for the attacker. The party that is the recipient of the negative effect in no way has the Blind special rule. They just have the negative effect of it (if it was successfully applied against them), which is really no different than losing a Wound - you just have to keep track of it. It's a collective 'wound' applied to the unit and one that lingers for the IC even if he detaches.
nekooni wrote: If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.
Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.
You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different
No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.
I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?
Huh? You are wildly confused here about Blind. Blind is a special rule for the attacker. The party that is the recipient of the negative effect in no way has the Blind special rule. They just have the negative effect of it (if it was successfully applied against them), which is really no different than losing a Wound - you just have to keep track of it. It's a collective 'wound' applied to the unit and one that lingers for the IC even if he detaches.
So you'd agree with this statement: The special rule Blind creates an effect on a unit that is treated as an Ongoing Effect. Correct?
nekooni wrote: If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.
Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.
That's not what I said. I was talking about effects, and you yourself just stated that the effect of Blind is not a Special Rule but an Ongoing Effect, which I agree with by the way.
But why is the effect of a different special rule NOT an Ongoing Effect then? There's a trigger condition that must be met (unit arrives via deep strike) and there's an effect (gains permission to charge), so if the trigger is met the effect comes into play - but you say "the Blind effect is clearly an Ongoing Effect targeting an enemy unit" while also saying "the -may charge from deep strike- effect targeting a friendly unit is clearly not an Ongoing Effect". That's what's confusing me.
You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different
No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.
It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.
You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different
No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.
It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.
He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.
So if an IC joins a Beast unit then the IC is granted the Fleet rule.
col_impact wrote: Why don't you reference the actual rules on this issue? There is no rule in the BRB that says you default to referring to a model as opposed to unit. You made that up. Here are the actual rules.
I have already referenced them. Do not blame me if you are too focused on creating strawmen based on arguments never presented. In your world, there are three statements that are incompatible with each other in the IC rules. And please try to note it as I say this time, again, I do not dismiss any of them, only those who say the IC do not gain the benefits of rules are dismissing at least a portion of them.
For some reason you believe that these:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit ...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
Spoiler:
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
are incompatible with this:
Spoiler:
Special Rules When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
However, they are not incompatible. I have explained this several times over this and other threads.
First:
Spoiler:
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Then:
Spoiler:
Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.
Along with:
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
I will also remind you that this:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit ...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
does not state it becomes part of its ALE, but just joins the unit and counts as part of it. Why is this important? For two reasons.
First:
Spoiler:
Special Rules When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Second:
col_impact wrote: So is the IC a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, yes or no? If yes (and you cannot choose no), then according to your argument, the IC gets Wraithflight.
The answer to this is, yes, he is a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, but the IC does not become a Canoptek Wraith model, nor is Wraithflight conferred upon him, as stated above, and because he is not literally in the ALE and thus the datasheet's special rules are not applied to him. And remember, not all rules in an ALE go to all models in the unit, the (Character) Type is quite standard as being unique to one original model of Imperium units, and then there are the Exarchs of the Eldar as well.
And yet, there is a way to "confer" special rules. This is done "as in the Stubborn special rule". Stubborn states nothing about Independent Characters nor granting anything to any models. How then does Stubborn confer its special rule between IC and unit? Let's see what the rule states without any of its conditions:
Spoiler:
Stubborn When a unit ... ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
There's the target and its effect. Still no mention of the IC or granting anything to anyone but an effect to the unit. So how does Stubborn "confer" from a unit to IC? By the IC being part of the unit. Remember:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit ...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
We do not ignore the conditions placed on the rule for them to go in to affect. If it requires all models to have the rule for the unit to use it, then the IC is included in the "all models in the unit" requirement. If the rule applies a benefit to a unit from a formation, the joined IC does not operate as their own unit but as the unit they joined. And so any of those types of rules the IC may have (such as Objective Secured) would not be passed on to the unit the IC joined unless like the Stubborn USR it only requires one model in the unit to be effective or specifically states the IC and the unit he joins.
Charistoph wrote:And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?
The application of the Special Rule to the IC is denied because it does not have the wording "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", per the IC Special Rules rule. It requires that wording in order to be specifically applied to the IC.
You did not answer the questions. Does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Yes or No?
I did not ask what ...On Target lacks to apply itself to ICs joined to the unit, as I have already demonstrated how. Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?
col_impact wrote: Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.
NOW you're getting it! That's the point I've been saying all along. Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.
col_impact wrote: No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.
Incorrect again. It needs to be a unit-affecting rule, not a unit rule, a slight difference. Either the IC counts as part of the unit (not ALE) for ALL rules purposes after it joins, or for none. No partiality or ambiguity is allowed in this statement, no matter how much you wish it to be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.
This is a lie. I have stated no such thing. Review again what I have actually written, not what you believe I have written.
Charistoph wrote: Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.
The rules disagree and directly contradict your argument. The rules actually cite Stubborn as an example of a rule that is conferred to the IC based on something specified in the rule itself. You keep going outside of Stubborn for the specific mechanic, but the IC Special Rules states that it is "specified in the rule ITSELF (as in the Stubborn special rule)". So keep examining the Stubborn rule ITSELF until you find it.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
So, per the rule, the IC is conferred the Stubborn rule. That cannot be denied, and you have yet to point to the specific portion in the rule itself that allows the conferring.
Since you define confer as "grant a rule" (and this is your definition and not one from the BRB) then the outcome in your argument is that the IC has the Stubborn rule.
Similarly, since you define confer as "grant a rule" then the outcome in your argument (which relies on the "counts as" rule to do the conferring) is that the IC gets the Fleet rule when attached to a unit with Fleet.
You won't be able to make sense of the IC Special Rules rule and Stubborn case until you realize that the BRB is using confer to mean "grant the benefit [of the rule]" and not "grant [the rule]".
No where is 'confer' defined in the BRB so the game could be using the term in a game way that is not directly a dictionary use (although "grant a benefit" is directly a dictionary use)..
You cannot definitively say that the BRB means exactly "grant a rule" since there is no definition in the BRB to settle the issue absolutely one way or the other.
Similarly, when the BRB uses 'shoot' it does not mean literally as from a dictionary the 'firing projectiles out of a gun' but rolling a dice on behalf of a miniature representation of a 'shooting weapon' on a toy to see if a 'hit' is scored in the game. 'Shoot' is similarly not defined in the BRB and we are left with inferring what 'shoot' means.
So as always, when the BRB does not provide explicit definitions, we need to infer their actual in-game meaning, and the IC Special Rules rule is exactly what we need to examine to sort out what confer actually means.
So again, keep looking at Stubborn until you find in the rule itself the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the conferring and sort out what conferring actually means in game terms.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
Your argument so far has been wholly unable to figure out what happens in the case of Stubborn. If you use the "counts as" IC rule to explain how a rule is conferred and define conferring as "grant a rule" then you will have all sorts of unintended logical consequences (such as granting the Fleet rule to ICs that join units with Fleet).
My argument:
The clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is the specific language that allows the benefits of the Stubborn rule to be conferred to the IC. There needs to be similarly worded clauses to confer the benefit of unit Special Rules to the ICs that join them.
I have followed the IC Special Rules rule and have pointed to the portion in the Stubborn rule ITSELF that makes it all work. You have yet to obey that rule.
The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.
And which is the problem entire with Cols argument.
That and confusing Confer and Benefit. WHich has been corrected so often that now Col seems to ignore that this destroys any ability for their argumetn to function...
You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different
No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.
It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.
He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.
So if an IC joins a Beast unit then the IC is granted the Fleet rule.
No he did not, stop lying.
And what about my arguments ,any response ?
Charistoph wrote: Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.
The rules disagree and directly contradict your argument. The rules actually cite Stubborn as an example of a rule that is conferred to the IC based on something specified in the rule itself. You keep going outside of Stubborn for the specific mechanic, but the IC Special Rules states that it is "specified in the rule ITSELF (as in the Stubborn special rule)". So keep examining the Stubborn rule ITSELF until you find it.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
So, per the rule, the IC is conferred the Stubborn rule. That cannot be denied, and you have yet to point to the specific portion in the rule itself that allows the conferring.
That is not what that states, though. The rule must specify in the rule itself AS IN THE STUBBORN RULE. In other words, Stubborn sets the standard for the method of conferring, not that Stubborn automatically confers. And Stubborn does not directly or specifically grant its rule to any models. It never mentions Independent Characters.
Read the rules and apply the context of them all.
col_impact wrote: Since you define confer as "grant a rule" (and this is your definition and not one from the BRB) then the outcome in your argument is that the IC has the Stubborn rule.
Similarly, since you define confer as "grant a rule" then the outcome in your argument (which relies on the "counts as" rule to do the conferring) is that the IC gets the Fleet rule when attached to a unit with Fleet.
Incorrect. Your inability or unwillingness to understand my position after numerous explanations is baffling. Learn how to alter your paradigm.
I define "confer a rule" as "grant a rule" as that is the literal definition of it without the rulebook providing another use or definition. Can you provide another?
I have stated that unless specifically stated, the Special Rules are not granted between unit and IC. The rule also states that one of these ways is as in Stubborn. Well, Stubborn does not grant Stubborn to its models. It does not grant Stubborn to ICs. It never specifically mentions ICs. It only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met.
Same thing is taken in consideration with Fleet. Fleet only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met. Fleet requires all models to have the rule. An IC without Fleet in a unit with Fleet will prevent any movement rerolls, because it failed to meet the conditions of the rule.
You are the one who is confusing my argument to mean that when a unit benefits from a rule, that benefit is conferring the rule itself to all the models of the unit. Odd when I've said the exact opposite numerous times by now.
But if you think you have the proper answer to this, please quote the Stubborn rule and highlight the words "model", "independent character", or "confer" and any of "confer"'s synonyms.
col_impact wrote: You won't be able to make sense of the IC Special Rules rule and Stubborn case until you realize that the BRB is using confer to mean "grant the benefit [of the rule]" and not "grant [the rule]".
Umm... You do realize that is exactly what I have been stating all along, don't you? Which is why I stated "a Blood Angel Captain does not actually GET Stubborn from a Dark Angels Tactical Squad, he just benefits from it."
col_impact wrote: No where is 'confer' defined in the BRB so the game could be using the term in a game way that is not directly a dictionary use (although "grant a benefit" is directly a dictionary use)..
Correct to a point. The "benefit" can only be implied due to how Stubborn "confers" it between IC and unit. It's good to see you are finally starting to understand the perspective of my argument.
col_impact wrote: You cannot definitively say that the BRB means exactly "grant a rule" since there is no definition in the BRB to settle the issue absolutely one way or the other.
Actually I can since that is the literal definition of "confer". When you have a verb that is followed by a noun like this, the verb is then applied to the noun. So, unless we have indications otherwise (as provided by Stubborn, which I have stated numerous times by now, and you have just stated yourself above), "confer a rule" literally means "grant a rule", not just "grant the benefit of the rule".
Context matters.
col_impact wrote: So again, keep looking at Stubborn until you find in the rule itself the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the conferring and sort out what conferring actually means in game terms.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
Your argument so far has been wholly unable to figure out what happens in the case of Stubborn. If you use the "counts as" IC rule to explain how a rule is conferred and define conferring as "grant a rule" then you will have all sorts of unintended logical consequences (such as granting the Fleet rule to ICs that join units with Fleet).
Yes, it grants the benefit of the rule to the IC, because the IC is being counted as a member of the unit. Without this previous statement, a Dark Angels Captain would not be able to provide a Codex Marines Vanguard Veteran Squad with Stubborn, or vice versa. The "at least one model with this special rule" is the condition that allows the IC to confer the benefit of the rule to a unit it joins.
You still have not adequately demonstrated, though, that the Captain and Vanguard Veteran Squads are considered part of the same unit for Stubborn and From the Sands We Rise, but not for things like Objective Secured, or ...On Target. And that is the key failure of your argument. You make an unsupportable separation.
col_impact wrote: My argument:
The clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is the specific language that allows the benefits of the Stubborn rule to be conferred to the IC. There needs to be similarly worded clauses to confer the benefit of unit Special Rules to the ICs that join them.
Zero clauses are literally told to be the method. If that was the case, then we would have to include all clauses of Stubborn, so a unit with Slow and Purposeful would have to be taking a Morale or Pinning Check in order to not count has having moved that Movement Phase when firing Heavy, Salvo, and Ordnance Weapons, or to Charge after firing such Weapons.
One needs to understand the target and applications as well as the conditions. Blind does not specify affecting Independent Characters, but its effect does include ICs if the unit he is in is fails the Test. If a Psyker power affects a unit, the IC will be included in the benefit. So why cannot a Detachment Special Rule that affects a unit not also affect the IC included when every other rule does?
col_impact wrote: I have followed the IC Special Rules rule and have pointed to the portion in the Stubborn rule ITSELF that makes it all work. You have yet to obey that rule.
No. You have misrepresented my argument for being something other than it was. You have then taken that argument used it as your own. You claim that I am saying that unit-affecting rules are granted to the whole unit and that is wrong, yet you have been saying that is exactly what Stubborn does.
I have said that unit-affecting rules affect the unit, and ICs are considered part of the unit when those effects come in to play. Stubborn requires a unit to only need one model to carry the rule AND to be taking a Morale and Pinning Check in order to benefit the IC. If the IC is being affected by something like Deathstalker's old Ld rule that lowers that IC's Leadership and the unit that IC is in is Stubborn and hit by the Nighbringer's Gaze of Death, the IC would not be able to benefit from Stubborn any more than the rest of the unit.
...On Target requires a unit with a specific name to perform an action to apply its benefits, IC with it nor not. Once it completes that action, the rule applies its benefit. If an IC is with the unit when it completes that action, it receives the benefit as part of the unit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.
And which is the problem entire with Cols argument.
That and confusing Confer and Benefit. WHich has been corrected so often that now Col seems to ignore that this destroys any ability for their argumetn to function...
Point to the definition of confer in the BRB. You cannot. It is not defined in the BRB. The BRB, like 'shoot', 'remove from play, and 'Kerr-runch' is using idiosyncratic definitions. It can do that. It's a game.
Otherwise, point to the rule in the BRB that lets you take the Dictionary as rule authority over the BRB.
In the case of 'confer' you take its actual usage in the BRB above any other source.
You infer from the usage in the BRB that confer means "grant the benefit of the rule" and not "grant a rule".
The Stubborn rule confirms this. Stubborn is directly cited by the BRB as showing as "specified in the rule itself" how rules are conferred
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is a clause that is "specified in the rule itself" that grants the benefit of the rule to the IC but does not actually grant the rule.
Therefore to "confer a rule" means to grant the benefit of the rule.
I define "confer a rule" as "grant a rule" as that is the literal definition of it without the rulebook providing another use or definition. Can you provide another?
I have stated that unless specifically stated, the Special Rules are not granted between unit and IC. The rule also states that one of these ways is as in Stubborn. Well, Stubborn does not grant Stubborn to its models. It does not grant Stubborn to ICs. It never specifically mentions ICs. It only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met.
That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
I will use a definition of 'confer' as inferred from its usage in the BRB. That is how you argue RAW.
As you note, since Stubborn does not actually grant Stubborn to ICs then confer can not plausibly mean "grant a rule".
Since Stubborn grants the benefit of the rule to attached ICS (as specified in the rule itself in this clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"), then we can infer that confer means "grant the benefit of the rule" and can only mean that. The BRB points directly to the case of Stubborn for what confer means and how confer works in the game. So the BRB gives no other plausible choice.
I have obeyed the rules and based my definition of 'confer' on the rules themselves and my definition of 'confer' is plausible in the context of the rules and my definition of 'confer' is the only plausible definition of 'confer' in the context of the game.
You are wholly unable to provide a definition of confer that is plausible in the context of the rules. In fact unless you adjust your meaning of confer (from "grant a rule" to "grant the benefit of the rule") then you are in the awkward position of having to state that the BRB is lying to you.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
So keep examining Stubborn until you find the thing that is "specified in the rule itself" that can explain what confer means and how it works.
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
Come on! You can do it! Put down that dictionary which the BRB does not authorize you to use and infer what 'confer' means based on the context of the Stubborn rule itself.
As you note context is important. So what does 'confer' mean exactly in the context "specified in the [Stubborn] rule itself" and in the context of the BRB?
Or alternatively just admit you are using a house ruled definition of confer from some other source than the BRB.
koooaei wrote: This issue came up last game. There's a formation of vanguard vets that can charge out of deepstrike. It says that the unit can deepstrike and than emidiately charge. Also, they have an innate rule that the squad can re-roll charge range and don't loose attacks on multicharge. So, what he did is joined in Marneus Calgar with some sort of termi armor to deepstrike. Performed a deepstrike and charged in re-rolling distance and not loosing attack.
Was it correct? Is there anything preventing from doing it? IC don't share special rules with the rest of the squad as they're not part of this formation but if the special rule states it affects the squad?
This was the original question wich is more a general issue in my eyes:
A IC from another Formation / Detachment joins a Unit witch is part of a Formation. How is the IC affected by the Formation rule/s the Unit has.
The endless quote battle that's going on here doesn't seem to help solving this issue. I've read so many responses witch varied from well logical reasoned stuff to trolling n then to esotherical stuff. For every ones's taste there was something to read.
For me it comes down two two simple things
1. what are the requirements needed to trigger a given rule? (Difference between Stubborn, Fleet, Blinding,.....,)
2. what effect is caused by the triggered rule and what is the target?
Both questions answered allow to solve pretty much the vast majority of rules questions in this case.
So if the requirements of a rules are given then the rule itself is triggered and the rule causes the effect. this can be anything... from leting deepstrike to allow an assault or re-roll any given D6 or whatever.
Important here!! the bearer of a Special rule and the target of the special rule can be the same model/unit. but they don't need to be the same. So its pretty easy to understand that its a difference between getting a Special rule or to be only the target of an effect caused by any special rule.
in the case above by the original poster i'D say that it is fine rule wise to attach Marneus and let the Deepstrike+ Assault happen.
The reason is simple. The formation gives the rule to the Unit. the unit is allowed to do that stuff. but there is no word that there are any additional requirements... ( suhc as found with Fleet) attaching a Ic to the unit does neighter remove the Special rule nor does it make the Unit beeing the unit.
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?
col_impact wrote:I will use a definition of 'confer' as inferred from its usage in the BRB. That is how you argue RAW.
As you note, since Stubborn does not actually grant Stubborn to ICs then confer can not plausibly mean "grant a rule".
Odd, since I have said exactly that at least 5 times now. Will you pay attention then?
col_impact wrote:Come on! You can do it! Put down that dictionary which the BRB does not authorize you to use and infer what 'confer' means based on the context of the Stubborn rule itself.
It uses English, therefore I am obligated to use English where it does not define the rulebook does not infer a definition or actually provide one.
col_impact wrote:As you note context is important. So what does 'confer' mean exactly in the context "specified in the [Stubborn] rule itself" and in the context of the BRB?
Or alternatively just admit you are using a house ruled definition of confer from some other source than the BRB.
Or you could actually read what I've written instead of conflating your opinion in to a strawman argument against something I never actually said.
_ghost_ wrote:
koooaei wrote: This issue came up last game. There's a formation of vanguard vets that can charge out of deepstrike. It says that the unit can deepstrike and than emidiately charge. Also, they have an innate rule that the squad can re-roll charge range and don't loose attacks on multicharge. So, what he did is joined in Marneus Calgar with some sort of termi armor to deepstrike. Performed a deepstrike and charged in re-rolling distance and not loosing attack.
Was it correct? Is there anything preventing from doing it? IC don't share special rules with the rest of the squad as they're not part of this formation but if the special rule states it affects the squad?
This was the original question wich is more a general issue in my eyes:
A IC from another Formation / Detachment joins a Unit witch is part of a Formation. How is the IC affected by the Formation rule/s the Unit has.
The endless quote battle that's going on here doesn't seem to help solving this issue. I've read so many responses witch varied from well logical reasoned stuff to trolling n then to esotherical stuff. For every ones's taste there was something to read.
For me it comes down two two simple things
1. what are the requirements needed to trigger a given rule? (Difference between Stubborn, Fleet, Blinding,.....,)
2. what effect is caused by the triggered rule and what is the target?
Both questions answered allow to solve pretty much the vast majority of rules questions in this case.
So if the requirements of a rules are given then the rule itself is triggered and the rule causes the effect. this can be anything... from leting deepstrike to allow an assault or re-roll any given D6 or whatever.
Important here!! the bearer of a Special rule and the target of the special rule can be the same model/unit. but they don't need to be the same. So its pretty easy to understand that its a difference between getting a Special rule or to be only the target of an effect caused by any special rule.
in the case above by the original poster i'D say that it is fine rule wise to attach Marneus and let the Deepstrike+ Assault happen.
The reason is simple. The formation gives the rule to the Unit. the unit is allowed to do that stuff. but there is no word that there are any additional requirements... ( suhc as found with Fleet) attaching a Ic to the unit does neighter remove the Special rule nor does it make the Unit beeing the unit.
This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?
Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.
My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and in picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game. In fact it does it a lot and is to be expected.
So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.
I know. but this claim is without any backup. The moment the IC is joined its no longer a tagetable unit. it becomes a model of another unit with a bunch of special rules. As there is no rule to my knowlede excludes IC in a unit when the term " unit" as target is used.... it comes down to the point that this is wish thinking or whatever.
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?
Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.
My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game.
col_impact:
the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary
the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary
That is literally nothing more than a house rule.
My approach is to adhere to the usage of the words in the game since it is a game and words can take on idiosyncratic meanings that are much different than real world definitions (e.g. shoot, move, assault, charge, remove from play, Kerr-runch)
The usage of the words in the BRB always trumps the OED. The words are used in the context of a bizarre game and the OED has no relation to that context.
The problem you face is that you cannot apply the OED definition in the case of Stubborn and the rules indicate that Stubborn is the standard for how Special Rules are conferred. The OED definition and the usage of confer in the BRB are in direct conflict. Stubborn does not grant the rule to the IC. Stubborn 'extends the affect of the rule' to the IC, which is what the BRB means by 'confer'.
So which is it? Is the BRB directly contradicting itself or lying to you?
OR
Are you just not using 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it?
I will use confer in the way the BRB uses it. The OED is not an authority recognized by the rule. It's not a bad house rule to use the OED to help understand rules, but it's still just a house rule and will always get trumped by the actual usage in the BRB of the word in question. It's a game. The language 40k uses is a specialized language filled with terms and usages of words that are unique to it.
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?
Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.
I did not say that the OED overrides the BRB, you are misrepresenting what I said. I said that without a proper definition, we resort to using the standard definition of things. It is how we know what "is" means without it being defined by the BRB. Since this is a British publication, using that nation's standard seemed more appropriate than using Merriam-Webster. And I also said that only be moving past the base definition as described in Stubborn does it make any sense. Which actually leads to:
col_impact wrote:My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and in picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game. In fact it does it a lot and is to be expected.
Indeed, I believe I have also pointed that out several times in this thread, why do you
col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
RAW.
All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?
Here are two things I posted long on it in the beginning:
Lance845 wrote: If the rule is a part of the unit the IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
If you read further, it says that IC are NOT affected by squad's special rules unless it's specified. Yes, they are affected by rules but not special rules...
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
That's why i'm a bit confused. It first says that they are for rules and purposes. Than says no special rules.
It does not say no special rules, it just says they do not confer. If a unit's datasheet states the unit has Relentless (such as a Terminator Squad), a Power-Armoured HQ does not have Relentless conferred upon him.
It also allows an out to work like Stubborn does. Stubborn does not state it confers, though, it just affects the unit. So a Blood Angels Captain joining a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not gain Stubborn from the Tactical Squad, but his Leadership will not be negatively affected during Morale Checks or Pinning Tests since he is part of the unit.
If you continue reading the IC rules, it mentions that if an IC is in a unit affected by a special rule, such as Blind, than that effect continues on the IC even if the IC leaves the unit. Blind is a rule that if a certain test is failed, all models in the unit have their WS and BS reduced. So we see a rule affecting a unit also affects the IC, since they are considered "in the unit".
There are some who argue that if a unit is called by its name, it is not referencing anything but the original models of the unit. They have not supported this by any rule, though. And since having a rule affect a unit by name, is still affecting a unit, the IC is still included in the affect just as much as he is for Shooting, Stubborn, or Blind.
Charistoph wrote:When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So, we have a rule that says ICs do not have the special rules conferred on them, or in other words, do not have the special rules "granted or bestowed" upon them (using the Oxford online dictionary, how much more British can you get?). Yet, it does provide an exception if it specifies as in the Stubborn Special Rule.
Well, let's review the Stubborn Special Rule for how it confers on the IC:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead."
Hmm, no mention of conferring (or any of its synonyms) or Independent Character exists in this rule. So how then does an IC not have its Leadership negatively affected while in a Stubborn unit? He doesn't get it. It is not bestowed or conferred upon him, yet the IC rule specifically points this rule out as the IC as the example of how an IC does get the rule from a unit (or vice versa).
The only possible solution is to review another portion of a rule and the target of the Stubborn Special Rule. From Joining and Leaving a Unit in the IC rules:"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." What is the target of the Stubborn rule? A unit that is somehow carrying the rule.
Then we continue on to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which states:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared."
Which indicates that Special Rules that affect a unit that the IC has joined WILL be affected as well, even if the IC leaves the group afterward. 92% of the unique rules provided by Formations are rules that have a Trigger and an effect, such as "When a unit with this special rule arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, it may Charge in the next Assault Phase." If the IC is with the unit when this Trigger occurs, it receives the beneficial effect from the rule just as much as it would be disabled if the unit was hit with a Blind Attack. Conversely, if the IC joins after the trigger, it is not affected.
So say you have a Vanguard unit with this Formation rule to charge and you have Marneus Calgar both waiting in Deep Strike Reserves as separate units and they both roll to come in on the same turn. You Deep Strike in the Vanguard unit, and seeing an opportunity for this unit to have even more punch, you Deep Strike Marneus Calgar in to Coherency with the unit (you gutsy player you) with no Mishaps. The Vanguard unit has fulfilled the conditions of its rule and the Trigger is activated and the unit receives the benefit. Calgar is not part of this unit when it happens as he arrives later and isn't considered a member of the unit till the end of the Movement Phase. This unit will not be able to charge because Calgar does not have any permission or Special Rule effect to override the Deep Strike and Reserves conditions.
BUT, if Calgar is in the Vanguard unit from deployment and Deep Strikes with the unit, he receives the benefit of the rule since he was a member of the unit when it received the effect of the Special Rule.
This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.
I know. but this claim is without any backup. The moment the IC is joined its no longer a tagetable unit. it becomes a model of another unit with a bunch of special rules. As there is no rule to my knowlede excludes IC in a unit when the term " unit" as target is used.... it comes down to the point that this is wish thinking or whatever.
Indeed it is. But they are so vehement about not allowing it for their own reasons they try to make up rules out of whole cloth.
the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary
That is literally nothing more than a house rule.
My approach is to adhere to the usage of the words in the game since it is a game and words can take on idiosyncratic meanings that are much different than real world definitions (e.g. shoot, move, assault, charge, remove from play, Kerr-runch)
The usage of the words in the BRB always trumps the OED. The words are used in the context of a bizarre game and the OED has no relation to that context.
The problem you face is that you cannot apply the OED definition in the case of Stubborn and the rules indicate that Stubborn is the standard for how Special Rules are conferred. The OED definition and the usage of confer in the BRB are in direct conflict. Stubborn does not grant the rule to the IC. Stubborn 'extends the affect of the rule' to the IC, which is what the BRB means by 'confer'.
So which is it? Is the BRB directly contradicting itself or lying to you?
OR
Are you just not using 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it?
I will use confer in the way the BRB uses it. The OED is not an authority recognized by the rule. It's not a bad house rule to use the OED to help understand rules, but it's still just a house rule and will always get trumped by the actual usage in the BRB of the word in question. It's a game. The language 40k uses is a specialized language filled with terms and usages of words that are unique to it.
Wow you use a lot of words here. So where exactly is it important if Stubborn itself is conffered to a attached IC ? When in our given Question does that matter?
Stubborn gives us a pattern of how Special rules and especially their effects are handled in regard to IC and Units they joined.
In this pattern Stubborn shows us it doesn't matter if a Ic gets that rule or not. By the very fact that the Ic counts as a member of the affected unit it is effected by Stubborn or any other rule that works in a similar pattern.
The pattern i mention is this that the effect affects the whole unit. -> Ic joins a unit -> IC is a part of the unit. Impression how easy it can be.
According to you unique approach to the rules. You litteraly said that you make it different than me and then described my approach with different words. You would not be able to only read the BRB without using the Oxford dictionary... if you still insist on being able to do so i humbly suggest you to buy a Greek(insert random language instead) BRB. don't take language training and never use a dictionary. just the BRB. Perhaps you send me a pm with the results? im honestly interested!
col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
RAW.
All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?
Re-read what I wrote and note the bold.
So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
Wow you use a lot of words here. So where exactly is it important if Stubborn itself is conffered to a attached IC ? When in our given Question does that matter?
Stubborn gives us a pattern of how Special rules and especially their effects are handled in regard to IC and Units they joined.
In this pattern Stubborn shows us it doesn't matter if a Ic gets that rule or not. By the very fact that the Ic counts as a member of the affected unit it is effected by Stubborn or any other rule that works in a similar pattern.
The pattern i mention is this that the effect affects the whole unit. -> Ic joins a unit -> IC is a part of the unit. Impression how easy it can be.
According to you unique approach to the rules. You litteraly said that you make it different than me and then described my approach with different words. You would not be able to only read the BRB without using the Oxford dictionary... if you still insist on being able to do so i humbly suggest you to buy a Greek(insert random language instead) BRB. don't take language training and never use a dictionary. just the BRB. Perhaps you send me a pm with the results? im honestly interested!
Your argument is different than mine.
This is my argument
Spoiler:
So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?
Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?
Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.
Page one, first line, first sentence.
What do you mean it doesn't say that? Sure it does, how are you going to prove that's not what whatever's written on page one means what it means if you're not allowed to use a dictionary?
col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
RAW.
All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?
Re-read what I wrote and note the bold.
So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.
As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).
Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.
I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?
Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.
Charistoph wrote: I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?
Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.
The burden is on you to satisfy this.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .
Charistoph wrote: I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?
Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.
The burden is on you to satisfy this.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .
The rule does specify that the entire unit gets to charge. The IC is part of the unit the same way that an IC in a Stubborn unit is part of the unit. "A unit with at least one model with..." and "A unit with..." are functionally identical, because they both affect the whole unit. We must have collectively said this close to fifty times by now.
Charistoph wrote: I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?
Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.
The burden is on you to satisfy this.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .
Already satisfied. IC counts as part of the unit. Vanguard Veteran Squad is a unit. Unit receives effect from rule, just as in Stubborn. So, again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?
So, col_impact. Just out of curiosity. A Farseer from a Warhost detachment, joins a unit of Kabalite Warriors from an AD. The Farseer is the only model within 3" of an objective. The opponent has a Tactical Squad from a CAD within 3". Who (if anybody) controls the objective? Why?
Happyjew wrote: So, col_impact. Just out of curiosity. A Farseer from a Warhost detachment, joins a unit of Kabalite Warriors from an AD. The Farseer is the only model within 3" of an objective. The opponent has a Tactical Squad from a CAD within 3". Who (if anybody) controls the objective? Why?
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the Tac Squad.
Although I suspect most people overlook the pertinence of the IC Special Rules rule in this case, so expect some resistance on enforcement, since they got used to playing it one way.
The IC Special Rule is not overlooked in the case of ICs joining units that DS and assault.
col_impact wrote: The IC does not receive the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
Correct. Nor have I said otherwise. In fact, I've said it numerous times up to this point. You keep confusing your own argument. We are not talking about the IC actually getting the ...On Target rule, nor have I ever said he does always need to. We are actually talking about the effect, aka the benefit.
col_impact wrote: The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule). This is obvious.
Right, like calling a unit by its name to receive its effect. IC counts as part of the unit when it receives the effect, just like in Blind and Stubborn. Done.
Now that has been established, what part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." or any other phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
Remember, there are no rules for the 2 units in 1/unit within a unit to use to support this.
col_impact wrote: The IC does not receive the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
Correct. Nor have I said otherwise. In fact, I've said it numerous times up to this point. You keep confusing your own argument. We are not talking about the IC actually getting the ...On Target rule, nor have I ever said he does always need to. We are actually talking about the effect, aka the benefit.
col_impact wrote: The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule). This is obvious.
Right, like calling a unit by its name to receive its effect. IC counts as part of the unit when it receives the effect, just like in Blind. Done.
Now that has been established, what part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." or any other phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
Sorry, I should have said . . .
Spoiler:
The IC does not receive the benefit of Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.
The ICdoes not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule)". This is obvious.
The IC does not receive the benefit of Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.
The ICdoes not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule). This is obvious.
Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
Charistoph wrote: Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
This is the question that needs to be answered, per the IC Special Rules rule.
What phrase or clause specified in the ...On Target rule itself specifically allows you to include all models?
Charistoph wrote: Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Yes, you are mispresenting. Nothing in there states that the rule must state, "A unit with at least one model with this special rule", and is not mentioned here so it cannot be taken as a literal requirement. That same phrase Stubborn is how Stubborn works, but that still does not make it a requisite phrase.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does NOT allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves. Inclusion is already established, so to exclude you must then provide the reason.
Charistoph wrote: Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.
I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Yes, you are mispresenting. Nothing in there states that the rule must state, "A unit with at least one model with this special rule", and is not mentioned here so it cannot be taken as a literal requirement. That same phrase Stubborn is how Stubborn works, but that still does not make it a requisite phrase.
So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does NOT allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves. Inclusion is already established, so to exclude you must then provide the reason.
The general allowance of simply being in the unit is taken away by the IC Special Rules rule. You are not providing the specific permission required.
Point to the portion "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" that allows you to specifically incorporate the IC.
For reference here is how Stubborn does it . . .
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."
The IC does not receive the benefit of Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.
The ICdoes not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule)". This is obvious.
A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.
this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.
The IC does not receive the benefit of Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.
The ICdoes not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule)". This is obvious.
A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.
this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.
The clause or something similar is indeed what you need.
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is specified in the Stubborn rule itself
'part of the joined unit for all rule purposes' is NOT specified in the Stubborn rule ITSELF.
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but col_impact is right. The rules of this game are based off of permissions. The IC rules state that a special rule must specifically state the it is shared by all models in the unit in order for it to apply to models ADDED to the unit (ICs). The On Target rule says that it applies to Vanguard Veteran Squads. That means it applies to the models in that specific entry in the codex. The IC is not part of that unit.
The IC does not receive the benefit of Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.
The ICdoes not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule)". This is obvious.
A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.
this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.
The clause or something similar is indeed what you need.
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is specified in the Stubborn rule itself
'part of the joined unit for all rule purposes' is NOT specified in the Stubborn rule ITSELF.
Stubborn tells you very direct that the whole unit benefits of Stubborn. point.
thats the only thing needed for Stubborn to affect an IC.
The sencence you love to throuw at us is the trigger of the rule. there could also be something like " if there is the 4th of may and it rains and there are models of the table .." thats the very same thing. a trigger . ...
Stubborn tells you very direct that the whole unit benefits of Stubborn. point.
thats the only thing needed for Stubborn to affect an IC.
The sencence you love to throuw at us is the trigger of the rule. there could also be something like " if there is the 4th of may and it rains and there are models of the table .." thats the very same thing. a trigger . ...
Point to the specific thing in the Stubborn rule itself that allows you to incorporate the IC. Quote please.
You have no choice but to point to
'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'
Just being in the unit does not grant the benefits of the rule, per the IC Special Rules rule.
This is all very obvious. You are just ignoring the clear directive to provide a specific override. There is no general allowance to extend the benefit of the Special Rule to the IC by just being in the unit.
You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.
Point to the rule in the BRB that allows you to use the Dictionary as a rules resource. Page and paragraph please.
It's not a bad house rule to allow using a dictionary to supplement what the BRB says, but it is still a house rule.
In cases where the BRB contradicts the Dictionary, the BRB wins out. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic definitions.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.
Point to the rule in the BRB that allows you to use the Dictionary as a rules resource. Page and paragraph please.
It's not a bad house rule to allow using a dictionary to supplement what the BRB says, but it is still a house rule.
In cases where the BRB contradicts the Dictionary, the BRB wins out. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic definitions.
So you simply assume that "confer" means whatever the feth you want it to mean. I'm sorry but how are you supposed to read a sentence if you're not allowed to use a dictionary to look up what a word means?
And we're looking to the Dictionary without it contradicting the BRB. We simply clarify what the BRB actually says, and the BRB says "special rules are not conferred", which in other words means "special rules are not transfered". The rule never says that the effect, beneficial or otherwise, is limited in a similar manner. Nor does it say that a specific wording must be given.
Are you seriously saying that
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. should be treated the very same as
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not impignorated upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not impignorated upon the unit. or
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s lamprophonies are not xertzed by the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s lamprophonies are not xertzed by the unit. According to you all we have to look for is the "example" in the Stubborn rule, right? Dictionary doesn't count, you're not allowed to look up any of the alternate words I used. I'm telling you that's exactly the same meaning, so that's all that counts - right?
This is VERY clear cut. Unlike some other rules, there is no ambiguity in this one.
Before the game starts, when units in your army have not been combined or deployed, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation gives it's units the following special rules:
-Shock Deployment
-First the Fire, then the Blade
-Suppressing Fusillade
-Leave No Survivors
These special rules are added to the unit's special rules BEFORE THE GAME STARTS.
To make it simpler, lets go through pre-game in the order it's done, EXACTLY the same as in the rulebook.
> The armies (you settle on your army list)
> The battlefield (set up the battlefield)
> Objective markers
> Deployment!!!!!!
The skyhammer annihilation force special rules are added to the formation's units during THE ARMIES pre-game section.
In the rulebook, it states (word-for-word) "Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain." This means that after THE ARMIES section of pre-game set-up, you can pretend that on the DATA SHEET of both of the ASSAULT and DEVASTATOR squads in the formation, they have the following extra special rule of Shock..., First..., Suppressing..., and Leave.... So now, the assault and devastator squads have a special rule that lets them assault from deep strike and all the shenanigans. It is the unit's special rules immediately following the armies section of pre-game setup. Nobody else gets these special rules.
Independent characters are added to units during DEPLOYMENT. This is AFTER the special rules have already been applied. Now, you might ask, "if the special rule says that the entire UNIT gains a benefit, does the independent character benefit from it too"? Normally, it says that an independent character is considered a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The only time this is not the case, is in the case of SPECIAL RULES.
It says in the rulebook, word-for-word, "the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Is charging from deep strike a benefit from a special rule? YES.
Does it say anywhere in the special rule that IC's are affected?
NO. The end.
Simply go through a checklist when determining if unit bonuses from special rules affect an IC.
Is the bonus from a special rule?
If yes, does it specifically state that it affects IC's (like it says word-for-word in the rulebook)?
I've broken it down in a way that, hopefully, everyone can understand and agree...
col_impact wrote:The general allowance of simply being in the unit is taken away by the IC Special Rules rule. You are not providing the specific permission required.
Um... No, it isn't. You are making that up. You've quoted it enough times to know that by now. It simply states that the rules do not confer unless specifically stated as in the Stubborn special rule. It does not state that the IC is not considered part of the unit for Special Rules. Those are two different sentences with two very different directions.
col_impact wrote:Point to the portion "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" that allows you to specifically incorporate the IC.
As already stated, it affects a unit and only a unit. Nothing about affecting models or Independent Characters is mentioned in this rule. Therefore the only way Stubborn can confer its benefit between IC and unit is by the rule affecting the unit.
The rule's conditions still need to be taken in to consideration, just like in Fleet and Deep Strike, but that doesn't mean one condition of two in the referenced special rule is the only way it can be accomplished.
col_impact wrote:For reference here is how Stubborn does it . . .
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."
Now, either complete the condition list of the special rule or understand what the rule is targeting with its effects. The specific phrase is never ever once mentioned as being the only key phrase.
And yet, even while you are so attached to it, you cannot even recognize it being fulfilled anyway. Much as recognizing that Stubborn grants its benefit to the unit that fulfills its requirements, and thereby benefiting the joined IC, you refuse to recognize that when ...On Target grants its benefits to the unit that fulfills its requirements would also benefiting the joined IC in the same manner.
EnTyme wrote:I can't believe I'm about to say this, but col_impact is right. The rules of this game are based off of permissions. The IC rules state that a special rule must specifically state the it is shared by all models in the unit in order for it to apply to models ADDED to the unit (ICs). The On Target rule says that it applies to Vanguard Veteran Squads. That means it applies to the models in that specific entry in the codex. The IC is not part of that unit.
You are correct that the rules of this game are based off of permissions.
Stubborn does not specifically state anything about an Independent Character, though, which either contradicts what the IC rule states, or as col_impact and myself have pointed out, it accomplishes it by conferring its benefits to the unit that the IC is counted a part of.
There is nothing that states that when a rule refers to a unit by name it is only referring to the original models of the unit, either. However, I have specific instructions to treat the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and when an effect is placed on the unit while the IC is joined, the IC also receives this effect even if he leaves.
So, in order to forbid ...On Target from affecting a joined IC, we must either demonstrate that it does not affect a unit (it does), ignore three separate rules stating otherwise (not with a permissive ruleset), or demonstrate the IC is otherwise excluded (it doesn't).
Rasko wrote:This is VERY clear cut. Unlike some other rules, there is no ambiguity in this one.
Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.
Rasko wrote:Independent characters are added to units during DEPLOYMENT. This is AFTER the special rules have already been applied. Now, you might ask, "if the special rule says that the entire UNIT gains a benefit, does the independent character benefit from it too"? Normally, it says that an independent character is considered a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The only time this is not the case, is in the case of SPECIAL RULES.
It says in the rulebook, word-for-word, "the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Is charging from deep strike a benefit from a special rule? YES.
Does it say anywhere in the special rule that IC's are affected?
NO. The end.
Simply go through a checklist when determining if unit bonuses from special rules affect an IC.
Is the bonus from a special rule?
If yes, does it specifically state that it affects IC's (like it says word-for-word in the rulebook)?
I've broken it down in a way that, hopefully, everyone can understand and agree...
There are a couple problems with your position, and I've started the quote where they start going wrong.
First you ignore that Stubborn is stated to affect between IC and unit, and in fact, benefits an IC joined to the unit. While doing so, it mentions ICs being affected just as much as ...On Target, First the Fire Then the Blade, and any number of other Detachment Special Rules that only specifically address affecting their units.
Second, Stubborn does not start affecting a unit when it is applied. It only affects the unit when it still has a model in the unit with the special rule AND taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Therefore, this standard cannot be used and keep with the stipulation provided in the Special Rules exception.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The rule clearly states that unless the special rule specifies it in the rule itself, the benefits of the special rule of the unit are not granted to the attached IC.
Per the rule, simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough to benefit from the units special rules.
Following the rule-recognized standard of Stubborn, the Stubborn special rule has specific language in the Stubborn rule itself which allows models attached to the unit to have the benefit of the Stubborn rule conferred to them.
Stubborn uses this specific clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to confer the benefit of Stubborn to the attached IC.
So without something similar, unit special rules simply do not confer their benefit to the attached IC. Simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough for the IC to be able to benefit from the unit's special rules.
I understand this goes against what you are trying to accomplish, but you cannot ignore rules.
The IC Special Rules rule makes it exceedingly clear that the benefits of special rules are not generally conferred to the attached IC.
They must be specifically conferred with language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).
You don't have any rules as written traction on this one, dude.
So your best bet would be to house rule it with your buddies if this is something that is very important for you to have.
Charistoph wrote: Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.
I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.
After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.
It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?
Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The rule clearly states that unless the special rule specifies it in the rule itself, the benefits of the special rule of the unit are not granted to the attached IC.
Incorrect. It must specifically state as in Stubborn, which states nothing about Independent Characters, much less "specifically". The only way Stubborn "specifically" states it includes the IC is by referencing the unit it is with and counting the IC as part of the unit. There is simply no other way that this can be accomplished with the literal words written in this book.
col_impact wrote: Per the rule, simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough to benefit from the units special rules.
Incorrect. This truly is not about having the rule itself conferred by a unit's special rules. The special rule has to specifically affect the unit as in Stubborn.
col_impact wrote: Following the rule-recognized standard of Stubborn, the Stubborn special rule has specific language in the Stubborn rule itself which allows models attached to the unit to have the benefit of the Stubborn rule conferred to them.
Incorrect. Stubborn carries zero words which grant benefits to the models attached to the unit. It is only by recognizing that the IC is part of the unit receiving the effect can one see how the IC benefits from this rule. You said it yourself.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn uses this specific clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to confer the benefit of Stubborn to the attached IC.
Not quite. While it does use that clause, nothing is stated requiring that literal phrase. But I do agree on the spirit of the this clause, to which, a unit from a Formation will always satisfy this rule, can you dispute that?
col_impact wrote: So without something similar, unit special rules simply do not confer their benefit to the attached IC. Simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough for the IC to be able to benefit from the unit's special rules.
And yet, it DOES have something similar. It is referring to a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule, can you dispute that?
col_impact wrote: I understand this goes against what you are trying to accomplish, but you cannot ignore rules.
But apparently, you can?
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule makes it exceedingly clear that the benefits of special rules are not generally conferred to the attached IC.
True, why do you keep rehashing this? A unit that comes with Relentless does not grant Relentless nor any of its benefits to an IC that joins it. A unit with Fleet requires an attached IC to have it if it plans on using its benefits.
col_impact wrote: They must be specifically conferred with language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).
Which ...On Target, First the Fire Then the Blade, and numerous other Detachment and Datasheet Special Rules do.
col_impact wrote: You don't have any rules as written traction on this one, dude.
I have more than you do. I'm not making any of mine up and I'm also not ignoring several other rules while doing so. Have fun with that.
Charistoph wrote: Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.
I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.
But you did actually ignore the reference to Stubborn and what it means. You may have been mistaken, but that IS taking things out of context or twisting them in an inaccurate way.
Rasko wrote: After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.
You do note that I agreed with you on this, correct? I skipped over this part because I was in agreement, as I pointed out in an earlier example.
Rasko wrote: It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?
You skipped the reference to Stubborn before, as I mentioned last time. It was my first point against your list if you recall. You choose not to address it now, as well.
I have gone over how Stubborn does this so many times by now in this thread, and even touched on in it in my earlier response, I really do not feel like addressing it again. If you choose not to actually pay attention to it and actually address it, that is your illogical decision.
Rasko wrote: Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.
Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist as in Stubborn? Yes.
What more do you need?
Charistoph wrote: Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.
I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.
After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.
It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?
Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.
The Characters doesn't have to have the rule himself to benefit from it (c.f. Stubborn, Stealth). The rule allows the Vanguard unit, of which the IC is a member for all rules purposes, to charge when arriving from deep strike. As has been noted, Painboyz have almost universally been played this way since forever.
col_impact wrote: You skipped the reference to Stubborn before, as I mentioned last time. It was my first point against your list if you recall. You choose not to address it now, as well.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Characters doesn't have to have the rule himself to benefit from it (c.f. Stubborn, Stealth). The rule allows the Vanguard unit, of which the IC is a member for all rules purposes, to charge when arriving from deep strike. As has been noted, Painboyz have almost universally been played this way since forever.
The Stubborn and Stealth special rules both literally start with "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
The IC doesn't have to have the rule himself because it explicitly states, as per the requirement in the rulebook, that anyone included in the unit has the special rule.
Is stealth and stubborn a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? Yes.
For stubborn and stealth, it says, in the special rule, that a unit gets the buff if at least one model has the rule. It is specifically stated. In words. Not implied.
Guys, I'm don't mean to be argumentative but I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts anything I've said before...
Are the skyhammer bonuses a special rule? Yes.
Do they pass the checklist? No.
For the skyhammer bonus, is it specifically stated? In words. Not implied.
How is "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." functionally different from "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." when we take into account that the IC is part of the Vanguard Veteran squad for all rules purposes?
You are right, the IC is a part of the Vet squad for all rules purposes. EXCEPT in the case of special rules. Why?
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
That is straight from the rulebook. Word for word.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." and "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." is a HUGE difference.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
This explicitly states in words that anyone gets the bonus. IN WORDS. IN THE RULE. There is no implications or ambiguity.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
This literally says the vet squad. Where, in this rule, do you see that anyone is included? It must say so IN THE RULE. IN WORDS.
Now, is the IC considered part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes. EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES. Why?
Once again, because it says so, in the rulebook...
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
The stubborn/stealth rules have a clause that literally says that it includes everyone.
Does the skyhammer rules have a clause that literally says that it includes anyone other than vanguard vets? No.
Is the IC considered a part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
However, is the bonus a special rule? Yes.
If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist in any way.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." passes the checklist easily.
Yet conferred does not mean benefit, no matter how often Col lies and says it does.
Col - youre at pure uner the bridge territory now, as you are claiming that the 40k ruleset is entirely internally defeind as regards language and meaning atatched to words. Yet you know that to be false, otherwise you would have given a page cite for "is"
Rasko wrote:The Stubborn and Stealth special rules both literally start with "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
So, here is where we study the phrase some of you are so keen on and part of what you initially ignored. Where is "Independent Character" specifically stated in that phrase? Here's a hint, it involves another rule you think is being overridden.
Rasko wrote:The IC doesn't have to have the rule himself because it explicitly states, as per the requirement in the rulebook, that anyone included in the unit has the special rule.
Is stealth and stubborn a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? Yes.
For stubborn and stealth, it says, in the special rule, that a unit gets the buff if at least one model has the rule. It is specifically stated. In words. Not implied.
Guys, I'm don't mean to be argumentative but I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts anything I've said before...
Are the skyhammer bonuses a special rule? Yes.
Do they pass the checklist? No.
For the skyhammer bonus, is it specifically stated? In words. Not implied.
Skyhammer and Shadowstrike special rules specifically include Independent Characters as much as Stubborn or Stealth do. Review your checklist, it is flawed.
Rasko wrote:You are right, the IC is a part of the Vet squad for all rules purposes. EXCEPT in the case of special rules. Why?
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
That is straight from the rulebook. Word for word.
That does not mean that the rules do not include the IC as part of the Veteran Squad, it just literally means that the rules are not placed upon the IC as if it started the army list process on the datasheet. Stubborn, the standard by which we are supposed to use, never specifically states "Independent Character". The only way Stubborn confers the benefit upon the IC, is by being in the unit that fulfills the requirements and conditions of the rule. There is no other way to look at it and still have it function as literally written.
Rasko wrote:"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." and "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." is a HUGE difference.
In terms of exact words, yes there is a difference. In terms of conditions, if we are looking at a Vanguard Veteran Squad, do we not have a unit containing at least one model with this special rule? Even while using it, why can you not accept it?
Rasko wrote:"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
This explicitly states in words that anyone gets the bonus. IN WORDS. IN THE RULE. There is no implications or ambiguity.
Agreed, mostly, but you are also missing a condition to allow the IC to gain benefit from the rule. Even then, it only works if we take another rule in to account. I explained above, I will add it below.
Rasko wrote:"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
This literally says the vet squad. Where, in this rule, do you see that anyone is included? It must say so IN THE RULE. IN WORDS.
By two rules. "When an IC has joined a unit, it counts as being part of that unit for all rules purposes." "A Vanguard Veteran Squad in this Formation". An IC joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad counts as being part of that unit for all rules purposes. Is the IC then considered part of "A Vanguard Veteran Squad in this Formation"? Why, yes, he is. IC receives benefit when the rule triggers the effect so long as he is in that unit and still fulfilling the requirements.
Rasko wrote:Now, is the IC considered part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes. EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES. Why?
Once again, because it says so, in the rulebook...
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
This says nothing about the IC not being considered part of the Veteran Squad for special rules. It only states that the IC does not get the rules just because he joins. Remember the lesson on Stubborn.
Rasko wrote:The stubborn/stealth rules have a clause that literally says that it includes everyone.
Does the skyhammer rules have a clause that literally says that it includes anyone other than vanguard vets? No.
Is the IC considered a part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
However, is the bonus a special rule? Yes.
If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist in any way.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." passes the checklist easily.
Yes it does, buy stating "a unit" which fulfills the rule's conditions gains a benefit. This is what Stubborn states. On Target states the exact same thing.
Rasko wrote: This is VERY clear cut. Unlike some other rules, there is no ambiguity in this one.
Before the game starts, when units in your army have not been combined or deployed, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation gives it's units the following special rules:
-Shock Deployment
-First the Fire, then the Blade
-Suppressing Fusillade
-Leave No Survivors
These special rules are added to the unit's special rules BEFORE THE GAME STARTS.
To make it simpler, lets go through pre-game in the order it's done, EXACTLY the same as in the rulebook.
> The armies (you settle on your army list)
> The battlefield (set up the battlefield)
> Objective markers
> Deployment!!!!!!
The skyhammer annihilation force special rules are added to the formation's units during THE ARMIES pre-game section.
In the rulebook, it states (word-for-word) "Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain." This means that after THE ARMIES section of pre-game set-up, you can pretend that on the DATA SHEET of both of the ASSAULT and DEVASTATOR squads in the formation, they have the following extra special rule of Shock..., First..., Suppressing..., and Leave.... So now, the assault and devastator squads have a special rule that lets them assault from deep strike and all the shenanigans. It is the unit's special rules immediately following the armies section of pre-game setup. Nobody else gets these special rules.
Independent characters are added to units during DEPLOYMENT. This is AFTER the special rules have already been applied. Now, you might ask, "if the special rule says that the entire UNIT gains a benefit, does the independent character benefit from it too"? Normally, it says that an independent character is considered a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The only time this is not the case, is in the case of SPECIAL RULES.
It says in the rulebook, word-for-word, "the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Is charging from deep strike a benefit from a special rule? YES.
Does it say anywhere in the special rule that IC's are affected?
NO. The end.
Simply go through a checklist when determining if unit bonuses from special rules affect an IC.
Is the bonus from a special rule?
If yes, does it specifically state that it affects IC's (like it says word-for-word in the rulebook)?
I've broken it down in a way that, hopefully, everyone can understand and agree...
Thank you for spelling out what I've been trying to figure out how to say since I first read this thread.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet conferred does not mean benefit, no matter how often Col lies and says it does.
Col - youre at pure uner the bridge territory now, as you are claiming that the 40k ruleset is entirely internally defeind as regards language and meaning atatched to words. Yet you know that to be false, otherwise you would have given a page cite for "is"
Your credibility just hit a new low.
Nos, your use of confer goes against the rules. You can't do that and call your argument RAW.
I use 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it and only in the way the BRB uses it.
Similarly, I use 'shoot' in the way the BRB uses it and not by some dictionary meaning that would require my models to actually be firing projectiles at one another.
The rules do not allow me to replace the BRB meaning with some random dictionary meaning that has nothing to do with the context of the game.
The BRB holds Stubborn up as the way in which special rules are 'conferred'.
Stubborn does not grant the Stubborn rule to the IC and yet it confers the rule.
Stubborn extends the effect of Stubborn (which is what the BRB means by 'confer') and it does so by virtue of this clause . . .
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
So in the BRB 'confer' means to grant the benefit of or to extend the effect of a special rule.
And the IC Special Rules rule requires that the special rule have specific language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC.
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply being in the unit is not sufficient to extend the benefits of special rules to the IC.
Since Charistoph has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF that would incorporate the IC, his argument is wholly invalid, and the On Target rule does not extend its benefit to the IC.
From now on Charistoph, instead of spamming this thread with blocks of multi-quotes simply indicate in one sentence whether you are going to continue to ignore the IC Special Rules rule or not, because that is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
This thread has boiled down to one side obeying the rules and the other side ignoring rules.
The IC Special Rules rule is in the BRB. You cannot ignore it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You still haven't explained how you're arbitrarily allowed to decide what confer means if you're not allowed to use a dictionary.
The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for the standard of how special rules are conferred.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Spoiler:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
Stubborn doesn't grant the rule Stubborn to the IC. The IC is granted the benefit of Stubborn by virtue of the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" that is specifically stated in the rule itself and that logically incorporates the IC. So confer has to mean 'to grant or extend the benefit of a rule' in the game of 40k.
I don't mind people using a dictionary to supplement the BRB. It's a fine house rule. However a dictionary meaning cannot contradict the BRB meaning. BRB usage of a word always trumps the dictionary. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic meanings to the words they use.
And ...On Target tells us the unit has that special rule, and that the unit (not parts of it, the unit) may charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. One rule says the unit can do something, the other says the unit can do something, neither of the rules explicitly call out ICs as being affected.
Indeed. One side is absolutely ignoring the ilex, and is also claiming that 40k is internally defined yet cannot point to the 40k definition of "is", NOR back up their claim that the rules require us to follow their mind up deft ion.
Luckily it's only one poster doing this, do they can resins my be ignored.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And ...On Target tells us the unit has that special rule, and that the unit (not parts of it, the unit) may charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. One rule says the unit can do something, the other says the unit can do something, neither of the rules explicitly call out ICs as being affected.
On Target does not specifically incorporate attached models to the unit (as in the Stubborn special rule). The IC Special Rules rule requires that.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Stubborn has a very specific clause that logically incorporate attached models to the unit (which ICs are)
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Indeed. One side is absolutely ignoring the ilex, and is also claiming that 40k is internally defined yet cannot point to the 40k definition of "is", NOR back up their claim that the rules require us to follow their mind up deft ion.
Luckily it's only one poster doing this, do they can resins my be ignored.
The BRB use of confer contradicts your dictionary definition. So you must take the BRB use over the dictionary. The BRB is using in an idiosyncratic way, just like it does with the word "shoot".
The BRB use of "a" and "is" do not contradict your dictionary definitions so feel free to use the dictionary to assist you with your reading comprehension of those challenging words. The BRB does not have an idiosyncratic use of those words.
...On Target uses the exact same reasoning as Stubborn for allowing the IC to charge with the unit. At the time the rule triggers the unit in its entirety is allowed to charge. The IC never gets the rule (i.e. it is not conferred to the IC), he's just given permission to charge by virtue of being part of the unit. A reading where "confer" is taken to mean "allow to benefit" as opposed to "bestow" or "grant" is in opposition both to the meaning of the word and to what the rule actually says.
Charistoph wrote: Yes it does, buy stating "a unit" which fulfills the rule's conditions gains a benefit. This is what Stubborn states. On Target states the exact same thing.
Are you guys seriously arguing that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for how special rules and IC's work. They provided an example, in stubborn, as to how they wanted special rules to have a clause of some sort if they wanted it to effect IC's.
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
How did the skyhammer/shadowstrike rules pass the checklist in the same manner as Stealth/Stubborn???
In stubborn/stealth, there is a clause that includes all models in the unit. That is the precedence it sets.
The BRB specifically states that it wants special rules to have a clause like stealth/stubborn, when it wants special rules to affect IC's.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." The skyhammer/shadowstrike special rules DO NOT HAVE A CLAUSE!
Goobi2 wrote: So the general consensus is:
A) ICs in Wulfen/Skyhammers/etc. can run and assault/deepstrike and assault/etc.
B) ICs cannot.
Sorry, not about to wade through 14 pages where some posts are longer than most threads.
Is Bound and Leap a rule that affects the unit? Yes. Is the IC considered a part of the Wulfen unit for all rules purposes? Yes. However, is the ability to run and charge, a special rule? Yes. If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist in the same manner as stealth/stubborn? No Therefore, no. IC's in Wulfen units will not gain the ability to run and charge.
Why must we go through this checklist when Bound and Leap says that it effects the unit and the IC is part of the unit? Because of this sentence in the rulebook.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ...On Target uses the exact same reasoning as Stubborn for allowing the IC to charge with the unit. At the time the rule triggers the unit in its entirety is allowed to charge. The IC never gets the rule (i.e. it is not conferred to the IC), he's just given permission to charge by virtue of being part of the unit. A reading where "confer" is taken to mean "allow to benefit" as opposed to "bestow" or "grant" is in opposition both to the meaning of the word and to what the rule actually says.
Once again, you ignore that special rules must pass the checklist in the same manner as stubborn.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. No one is disputing that. However, is the ability to charge, a special rule?
If yes, then does it pass the IC and special rule checklist in the same manner as stubborn?
Since the ability to charge is a special rule granted to the unit, any IC's in the unit must pass the checklist because
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Come on guys...
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
This whole issue is very clear-cut. I'm really not seeing how you guys can argue it is another way.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive
Your checklist is flawed
A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.
Nope. Per the IC Special Rules rule . . .
Spoiler:
the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit
And as we know from Stubborn, the BRB uses confer as 'to extend the benefit of the rule' so by default a unit's special rules are not extended to the IC.
How does the IC Special Rules rule say you can get around that?
If an allowance is "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"
So again we look to the Stubborn rule and we see how that is done.
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."
The On Target rule is only a unit rule. It lacks the requisite specification (as in the Stubborn special rule) to extend the benefit of its rule to the IC.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive
Your checklist is flawed
A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.
Ok, so to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you...
You are saying that we can just remove the "as in the Stubborn special rule" part of
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." Because it is in parenthesis? "Semantically, an example" Um... Ok... I wish I could just remove text from rules to fit my needs... But we'll just see where this takes us...
So now, in your world, we would have
"Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." And from here, you are saying that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." gives the ability to the IC because it is fundamentally part of the unit and therefore bypasses "Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character". And the reason you can bypass this now, is because
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test."
nosferatu1001 wrote: The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive
Your checklist is flawed
A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.
Ok, so to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you...
You are saying that we can just remove the "as in the Stubborn special rule" part of
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." Because it is in parenthesis? "Semantically, an example" Um... Ok... I wish I could just remove text from rules to fit my needs... But we'll just see where this takes us...
So now, in your world, we would have
"Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." And from here, you are saying that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." gives the ability to the IC because it is fundamentally part of the unit and therefore bypasses "Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character". And the reason you can bypass this now, is because
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test."
Well gak man. I don't even know what to say.
It's quite simple I'm not sure where you are getting mixed up with your checklist. Here is my checklist.
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
IC is considered part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad"
"Vanguard Veteran Squad (including IC)" may charge.
Checklist works.
"Special rules are not conferred to the IC"
Okay. The IC does not get "...On Target"
However the following people have the "... On Target" rule
2x5 Scouts
5 Vanguard Veterans.
Does this rule allow the Scouts to charge? No, It doesn't say anything about the unit that has the rule.
It says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
So a revised checklist.
Is it a "vanguard Veteran Squad" from this formation? - Yes
IC is added. Is considered part of the unit.
Is it a "vanguard Veteran Squad" from this formation? - yes
is IC conferred "...On target" - no
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation may charge"
Is it still a "vanguard Veteran squad from this formation" ? -> yes -> it may charge.
Getting bogged down on the semantics of "a unit containing one model with" is pointless. No model in the unit NEEDS "...On target" ! even if only the scouts had the rule it would still work, as it doesn't require anyone in the unit to have it.
The only requirement is that they be a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation"
Since ICs are considered part of the unit, it is still a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation".
As long as it is a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation" it may charge.
I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about.
I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!
Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So, the only question should be... Is "On Target" a special rule that effects the unit or not?
If it is, it must have a clause (like the stubborn special rule), that allows the IC to benefit from it! The only way your checklist works is if you ignore the special rule section entirely! For all rules, the IC is considered a part of the unit EXCEPT for special rules!
How is this so hard to understand...
I understand what you are saying completely. You are saying that since "On Target" grants the Vet squad the ability to charge, an IC part of the Vet squad fulfills this requirement and therefore, gains the ability to charge.
But you conveniently ignore that ALL SPECIAL RULES must pass an additional checklist when determining if a unit's special rule applies to an IC attached to it.
col_impact wrote:Since Charistoph has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF that would incorporate the IC, his argument is wholly invalid, and the On Target rule does not extend its benefit to the IC.
Liar. I have. Your acceptance is not contingent on my having already done it, especially when you have made zero effort to disprove it using written rules in context. I have pointed to language in the On Target rule itself that is as specific as in Stubborn. Not that you actually bother to read or listen.
col_impact wrote:From now on Charistoph, instead of spamming this thread with blocks of multi-quotes simply indicate in one sentence whether you are going to continue to ignore the IC Special Rules rule or not, because that is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
Quit making continuously inaccurate statements and lies and I might consider it, except I have never once stated or implied I am ignoring any of the IC Special Rules, you have repeatedly, though. The problem is with this situation is that one simple rule does not define this situation. It requires many rules working in synch in order to work. You are just assuming something breaks another so it overrides it instead of looking for the harmony of the situation and read the rules as they are written.
col_impact wrote:This thread has boiled down to one side obeying the rules and the other side ignoring rules.
I agree. Please stop ignoring a plethora of rules, please.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Yes it does, buy stating "a unit" which fulfills the rule's conditions gains a benefit. This is what Stubborn states. On Target states the exact same thing.
Are you guys seriously arguing that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for how special rules and IC's work. They provided an example, in stubborn, as to how they wanted special rules to have a clause of some sort if they wanted it to effect IC's.
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
How did the skyhammer/shadowstrike rules pass the checklist in the same manner as Stealth/Stubborn???
Yes. I am saying they are equal clauses when considering ICs.
What is a Vanguard Veteran Squad? The Datasheet tells us it is a unit name. No other entity exists which is called "Vanguard Veteran Squad", so it is the same as saying, "a unit with this name".
Rules provided on a unit's datasheet are rules that are applied to the models in the unit. Formation special rules are rules that are applied to the unit, which then are applied to the models within those units. As you said so yourself and to which I agreed. This fulfills "at least one model with this special rule".
Keep in mind, though, "applied" here does not mean that their conditions are fulfilled and the benefits are reaped. This would be ignoring the literal wording of the rules themselves. The "applied" in this situation is more like a sticker, icon, or banner being carried by the model.
Therefore, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule". Can you logically refute this?
Consider also that the IC is as much a part of the unit with at least one model containing a special rule when the unit benefits from Stubborn as it is in a Vanguard Veteran Squad it has joined.
Rasko wrote:In stubborn/stealth, there is a clause that includes all models in the unit. That is the precedence it sets.
The BRB specifically states that it wants special rules to have a clause like stealth/stubborn, when it wants special rules to affect IC's.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." The skyhammer/shadowstrike special rules DO NOT HAVE A CLAUSE!
Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."
In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.
In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.
So, in short, yes. It does pass the same checklist that Stubborn asks for, unless you are also saying you can only include an IC with a Detachment Special Rule when they are taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, too?
col_impact wrote:Since Charistoph has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF that would incorporate the IC, his argument is wholly invalid, and the On Target rule does not extend its benefit to the IC.
Liar. I have. Your acceptance is not contingent on my having already done it, especially when you have made zero effort to disprove it using written rules in context. I have pointed to language in the On Target rule itself that is as specific as in Stubborn. Not that you actually bother to read or listen.
col_impact wrote:From now on Charistoph, instead of spamming this thread with blocks of multi-quotes simply indicate in one sentence whether you are going to continue to ignore the IC Special Rules rule or not, because that is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
Quit making continuously inaccurate statements and lies and I might consider it, except I have never once stated or implied I am ignoring any of the IC Special Rules, you have repeatedly, though. The problem is with this situation is that one simple rule does not define this situation. It requires many rules working in synch in order to work. You are just assuming something breaks another so it overrides it instead of looking for the harmony of the situation and read the rules as they are written.
col_impact wrote:This thread has boiled down to one side obeying the rules and the other side ignoring rules.
I agree. Please stop ignoring a plethora of rules, please.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Yes it does, buy stating "a unit" which fulfills the rule's conditions gains a benefit. This is what Stubborn states. On Target states the exact same thing.
Are you guys seriously arguing that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for how special rules and IC's work. They provided an example, in stubborn, as to how they wanted special rules to have a clause of some sort if they wanted it to effect IC's.
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
How did the skyhammer/shadowstrike rules pass the checklist in the same manner as Stealth/Stubborn???
Yes. I am saying they are equal clauses when considering ICs.
What is a Vanguard Veteran Squad? The Datasheet tells us it is a unit name. No other entity exists which is called "Vanguard Veteran Squad", so it is the same as saying, "a unit with this name".
Rules provided on a unit's datasheet are rules that are applied to the models in the unit. Formation special rules are rules that are applied to the unit, which then are applied to the models within those units. As you said so yourself and to which I agreed. This fulfills "at least one model with this special rule".
Keep in mind, though, "applied" here does not mean that their conditions are fulfilled and the benefits are reaped. This would be ignoring the literal wording of the rules themselves. The "applied" in this situation is more like a sticker, icon, or banner being carried by the model.
Therefore, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule". Can you logically refute this?
Consider also that the IC is as much a part of the unit with at least one model containing a special rule when the unit benefits from Stubborn as it is in a Vanguard Veteran Squad it has joined.
Rasko wrote:In stubborn/stealth, there is a clause that includes all models in the unit. That is the precedence it sets.
The BRB specifically states that it wants special rules to have a clause like stealth/stubborn, when it wants special rules to affect IC's.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." The skyhammer/shadowstrike special rules DO NOT HAVE A CLAUSE!
Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."
In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.
In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.
So, in short, yes. It does pass the same checklist that Stubborn asks for, unless you are also saying you can only include an IC with a Detachment Special Rule when they are taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, too?
;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.
I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about. I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!
Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says: "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
You are the one ignoring what's written there. I covered it in my post.
The units Special rules ARE NOT CONFERRED upon the IC. That is what the quote tells us, and that is true.
"...On Target" is NOT CONFERRED.
But as I pointed out, the rule does not have to be conferred.
If we refer back to the checklist.
Is it a "Vanguard Veteran squad from the formation" ? - Yes
The ICs presence doesn't change this. As long as the above is true then the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Rasko wrote: I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about.
Semantics is the study of the English language. They are as much part of a rules discussion as logic.
Rasko wrote: I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!
Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So, the only question should be... Is "On Target" a special rule that effects the unit or not?
If it is, it must have a clause (like the stubborn special rule), that allows the IC to benefit from it! The only way your checklist works is if you ignore the special rule section entirely! For all rules, the IC is considered a part of the unit EXCEPT for special rules!
How is this so hard to understand...
First off, we are not ignoring anything. This stance of yours requires that we ignore numerous facets of the IC rules, our stance is actually quite inclusive.
Second, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." is not exactly the same as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules do not affect the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules do not affect the unit." Especially since we have a rule two sections down that states, "Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly."
Third, we are looking at the Rules in question as "Target", "Conditions", "Effect", not literary requirements that are not specifically stated. "at least one model with this special rule" is as much a condition as "from this Formation" or "if all models in this unit possess this special rule" or "take a Morale Check or Pinning Test" or "if the first model is placed within...."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: ;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.
Liar. Provide proper written evidence of my statement's inaccuracies. I have points out the specific language, repeatedly. You have even provided the same arguments yourself.
It seems like we aren't understanding each other. So let's break it down, step-by-step. And hopefully, come to an agreement.
Charistoph wrote: Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."
In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.
In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.
I agree 100% with you here. There is nothing wrong with this.
The IC passes the only requirement of needing to be part of a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad. So, as per the bonus, this means the entire unit gets to charge.
This will, obviously, include the IC because the IC is a part of the unit.
I'm with you so far.
HOWEVER, under SPECIAL RULES in the rulebook, it states:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Now, what does this mean?
I'm not saying that the IC is not a part of the Vet squad. The IC would, normally, get the ability to charge.
However, that sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.
Because IC's and Special Rules must pass a final checklist, as per the rulebook.
You can't just stop at giving the IC charge because it is a SPECIAL RULE OF THE UNIT! And like all unit SPECIAL RULES and IC's, it must pass an additional checklist of having a CLAUSE. Like Stubborn has.
Please let me know if we still don't understand each other or if I am misinterpreting you.
That sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.
I believe here is where we are misscommunicating.
The sentence under special rules says that the IC is not conferred the special rules of the unit.
It doesn't mention benefit.
It lists Stubborn as an exception which still doesn't make much sense.
HOWEVER moving onto the second part of your statement.
" it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN"
It does.
Stubborn says "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
On Target says "vanguard Veteran squads from this formation"
They both tell us who is affected
For stubborn it is any unit containing at least one model with stubborn.
For on target it is [/u]Vanguard Veteran squads[/u] from the formation (regardless of any of their models having the rule or not)
They both Target "the unit" (which includes IC)
There is nothing else under stubborn to suggest ICs. This is litertally the only way stubborn could be used contextually for
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"
col_impact wrote: ;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.
Liar. Provide proper written evidence of my statement's inaccuracies. I have points out the specific language, repeatedly. You have even provided the same arguments yourself.
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply being in a unit (or a Veteran Vanguard Squad) does not allow the IC to benefit from the special rules of the unit.
The special rule must have specific language that would incorporate attached models (as in Stubborn) that would otherwise not be incorporated.
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" logically and specifically incorporates attached models.
You have been wholly unable to point to any such specific clause that would logically and specifically incorporate attached models.
You have only pointed to a general "in a unit" clause, but the IC Special Rules rule is clear that this is not sufficient.
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that the default state is that unit rules do not extend their benefits to attached models unless the special rule has a clause with logic that would specifically incorporate attached models (e.g. "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule")
I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.
He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.
Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"
That sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.
I believe here is where we are misscommunicating.
The sentence under special rules says that the IC is not conferred the special rules of the unit.
It doesn't mention benefit.
It lists Stubborn as an exception which still doesn't make much sense.
This is because you are not using confer the way the BRB uses confer. Don't do that. Use confer in the way that the BRB uses confer.
Charistoph wrote: Yes. I am saying they are equal clauses when considering ICs.
What is a Vanguard Veteran Squad? The Datasheet tells us it is a unit name. No other entity exists which is called "Vanguard Veteran Squad", so it is the same as saying, "a unit with this name".
Rules provided on a unit's datasheet are rules that are applied to the models in the unit. Formation special rules are rules that are applied to the unit, which then are applied to the models within those units. As you said so yourself and to which I agreed. This fulfills "at least one model with this special rule".
Keep in mind, though, "applied" here does not mean that their conditions are fulfilled and the benefits are reaped. This would be ignoring the literal wording of the rules themselves. The "applied" in this situation is more like a sticker, icon, or banner being carried by the model.
Therefore, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule". Can you logically refute this?
Consider also that the IC is as much a part of the unit with at least one model containing a special rule when the unit benefits from Stubborn as it is in a Vanguard Veteran Squad it has joined.
Ok, so now, I begin to understand your side of the argument. I don't need to refute that
Charistoph wrote: "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule"
because it is irrelevent. Why?
We go back to what I was saying about formation bonuses and pre-game setup.
Straight from the rulebook, it says
"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist.
The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.
Charistoph wrote: Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."
In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.
In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.
So, in short, yes. It does pass the same checklist that Stubborn asks for, unless you are also saying you can only include an IC with a Detachment Special Rule when they are taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, too?
So now, everything I've said starts to come together.
The stance that "'Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" and "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." are both clauses that validate IC's makes sense IF AND ONLY IF 'On Target' was written into the IC's special rule. IT WAS NOT.
Lets look at the precedence set for UNIT SPECIAL RULES in the rulebook,
Monster Hunter "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls all failed..."
Move Through Cover "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls..."
Are we seeing a pattern? When the rulebook wants UNIT SPECIAL RULES to effect anyone else, including IC's, they make it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR. This is not just Stubborn!
Would IC's benefit from 'On Target' if it was originally part of the formation? Yes!
But by the time IC's join a unit in deployment, they do not retro-actively gain any of the formation special rules!
However, 'On Target' states that it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
So, it is still possible for IC's to benefit but you must check to see if it passes the IC and UNIT SPECIAL RULE checklist like normal!
For the checklist, you look at the precedent set by the rulebook in how they want IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES to interact, to see if 'On Target' applies to IC's.
This precedent has been set by multitudes of special rules including Stubborn/Monster Hunter/etc/etc/etc/etc and they even provided an example in Stubborn, specifically in the rule.
It does not pass the checklist.
Do we agree?
harkequin wrote: I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.
He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.
Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"
Relentless is a model special rule. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. "On target" is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate listing right under Special Rules that talks about IC's and things like blind. It is literally right under it. It's called ICs and Ongoing Effects.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now.
harkequin wrote:
I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.
He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.
Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"
Relentless is a model special rule. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. "On target" is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate listing right under Special Rules that talks about IC's and things like blind. It is literally right under it. It's called ICs and Ongoing Effects.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now.
I am well aware that it is a model special rule, that was my point!
You missed it entirely.
THE MODEL IS NOT CONFERRED THE RULES OF THE UNIT.
Lets take an example, In say a decurion all the UNITS are given relentless. However if I add an IC from a CAD, they do not get relentless despite "being considered part of the unit"
because of the clause
" rules are not conferred"
That is why the clause exists, it prevents the IC from benefitting from MODEL RULES that the unit has,
However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"
harkequin wrote: I am well aware that it is a model special rule, that was my point!
You missed it entirely.
THE MODEL IS NOT CONFERRED THE RULES OF THE UNIT.
Lets take an example, In say a decurion all the UNITS are given relentless. However if I add an IC from a CAD, they do not get relentless despite "being considered part of the unit"
because of the clause
" rules are not conferred"
That is why the clause exists, it prevents the IC from benefitting from MODEL RULES that the unit has,
However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"
You did not address anything else I wrote. But ok, I'll address yours.
Huge flaw in your thinking, yet again.
Once more, I read straight from the rulebook. There is literally no twisting of any rules or taking out of context, it is straight from the rulebook under ICs and Ongoing Effects:
"Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared." Even in your interpretation, the unit gained the ability to charge via 'On Target' at army list creation. It is not shared to anyone else.
And even this is wrong, You are confusing EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES. Two wholely different topics.
Getting Blinded is an effect, and therefore doesn't care at all about IC's.
Stubborn, On Target, and Stealth are UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
UNIT SPECIAL RULES must abide by the checklist. Things that target the unit can be effects or UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
'On Target' is a formation bonus, which means it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
For example, lets take the new Wulfen curse chart.
You have a unit of Blood Claws and you join Tigurius to them. You roll for the curse and get +3" movement. Is Tigurius effected? Yes.
Because it is an EFFECT. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. And for all rules purposes, Tigurius is considered part of the unit except for, you guessed it, UNIT SPECIAL RULES. Same for blind.
However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"
Stubborn - a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Blind - all models in the unit
Stealth - a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
On Target - units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads'
In the cases of Stubborn, Blind, and Stealth there is specific logic that would extend the benefit of the special rule to attached models.
In the case of On Target, the IC is merely joined to a unit with unit special rules, which is nothing more than the default state - an IC joined to a unit with special rules that affect the unit.
The IC Special Rules rule is very clear about what happens in the default case of an IC that is merely joined to a unit with unit special rules.
Spoiler:
the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit
Without specific logical clauses that extend the benefit of the special rule to attached models (as in Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc.), the effect of the special rule does not confer to the IC.
Rasko wrote: Ok, so now, I begin to understand your side of the argument. I don't need to refute that
At least someone is trying to understand instead of just throwing lies around.
Do keep in mind, that this is not my first rodeo on this subject and every single argument against my position in this thread has been used before. It is why I am so ready for answers to each and every one. Time to type them, however, is not as easily available.
Charistoph wrote: "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule"
because it is irrelevent. Why?
We go back to what I was saying about formation bonuses and pre-game setup.
Straight from the rulebook, it says
"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist.
The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.
You are confusing things here, I think.
For one, when it comes to the relationship between ICs, units, and their Special Rules, no distinction is made between USRs, unit datasheet special rules, formation datasheet special rules, and detachment command benefits. There are other distinctions between them, of course, but when it comes to the IC and unit relationship, there is none listed.
For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.
On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).
So, the belief that On Target cannot affect an IC because the rule affects the unit before deployment carries no weight unless you make that same determination for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc., which then puts a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference.
This is why Mr. Shine asks the question, "How is the IC considered part of the unit for Stubborn, but not for On Target?" Both rules state they affect a target, and the target in question is a unit carrying this special rule, the IC is part of the unit. So why is one different just because it came from a detachment?
Rasko wrote: So now, everything I've said starts to come together.
The stance that "'Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" and "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." are both clauses that validate IC's makes sense IF AND ONLY IF 'On Target' was written into the IC's special rule. IT WAS NOT.
So Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful would not work then, because they are not written in to the IC's special rule, but only Stubborn? This also puts that same rule you are using to a lie, because it ignores HOW Stubborn "specifies" it includes the IC with the unit. It also adds in rules that a specific phrase, AND ONLY THAT PHRASE, is the trigger for the relationship. It also ignores the second next set of rules regarding Ongoing Effects.
Keep in mind, Stubborn does not mention Independent Characters at all, nor states anything about models benefiting from this rule. It simply states a unit is affected and provides conditions for that effect to come in to play. Fleet is no different in this respect, aside from the fact that its conditions are steeper ('at least one model' versus 'all models in the unit').
Rasko wrote: Are we seeing a pattern? When the rulebook wants UNIT SPECIAL RULES to effect anyone else, including IC's, they make it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR. This is not just Stubborn!
Would IC's benefit from 'On Target' if it was part of the formation? Yes!
But by the time IC's join a unit in deployment, they do not retro-actively gain any of the formation special rules!
However, 'On Target' states that it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
So, it is still possible for IC's to benefit but you must check to see if it passes the IC and UNIT SPECIAL RULE checklist like normal!
For the checklist, you look at the precedent set by the rulebook in how they want IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES to interact, to see if 'On Target' applies to IC's.
This precedent has been set by multitudes of special rules including Stubborn/Monster Hunter/etc/etc/etc/etc and they even provided an example in Stubborn.
It does not pass the checklist.
Do we agree?
No, we do not. Your checklist is flawed by a slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission, only some of which I have detailed in this post, but I have detailed earlier in this thread. This argument has been used several times throughout this thread.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." is a two-way condition. It is meant to allow an IC to affect a unit or for a unit to affect an IC. This is important for a UNIVERSAL special rule that could be carried by any model, be it a grunt Tactical Squad Marine or a Lord of War Chapter Master, but still be intended to affect all models in the unit.
This next part gets more in to intentions and logic than any actual rule written, but then including Independent Characters in with Stubborn takes a step in that direction anyway.
However, this is a redundant statement and clause for a rule that will be carried only by units so long as it exists. There are no ICs in the Shadowstrike Kill Team or the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. Many special rules unique to units also do not have ICs in the unit. Why add a clause that would allow an IC to give this benefit to a unit it has joined when no IC exists which can possess it (such as in On Target)? What if a rule is intended to not allow an IC to share it with the unit, but the unit would still share it with the IC (such as Codex Marines Demi-Company Objective Secured)?
Ponder this logic path and consider where it leads you.
All unit special rules target the unit for their effect. There is nothing specific about a unit special rule that targets the unit.
We know for certain that an IC that is joined to a unit does not get the units special rules just by being in the unit.
The IC Special Rules rule states clearly . . .
Spoiler:
the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
In order to have the benefit of the special rule confer to the IC, the IC Special Rules rule points out that the unit special rule must specify in the rule itself that models attached to the unit are to be included (as in Stubborn)
Stubborn uses this clause to logically incorporate attached models: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or "a unit containing one or more models with this special rule"
Here are all the unit special rules in the BRB that contain this phrase . . .
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" (or the synonymous variant "a unit containing one or more models with this special rule")
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
Those rules all extend their benefit to the attached ICs by virtue of the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". They follow the template of Stubborn.
Here are three unit rules that follow a different template . . .
Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the special rule"
Swarms - "a unit entirely composed of models with the special rule"
An IC (that does not have those special rules) that joins a unit with those special rules does not get the benefit of Fleet, Deep Strike, or Swarms and will effectively take away the ability of host unit to use Fleet, Deep Strike, or Swarms.
Here is another rule following yet another template
Jink "all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save"
An IC (that does not have Jink) that joins a unit with Jink does not get the benefit of Jink, but unlike Fleet or Deep Strike case, the IC not having Jink will not take away the ability of the other models to Jink.
################################################
Consider 2 rules
A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?
However, remember the IC Special Rules rule!
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
By default, unit rules do not extend their benefit to attached ICs. In order to extend their benefit to attached ICs the special rules must specify in the rule itself (as in stubborn) with a clause something along the lines of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
And in fact nearly all of the unit special rules make this exact specification! And the special rules that do not make this exact specification do so because they do not want the IC to get the benefit of the unit rule.
Here is the list again of those that have made that specification.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
The important thing to see is that only the (A) version of Night Vision will extend the benefit of Night Vision to the attached IC.
The (B) version of the Night Vision rule will not extend the benefit of Night Vision to the attached IC per the IC Special Rules rule.
And for the same reason, On Target will not extend the benefit of its unit special rules to the attached IC. The On Target rule does not make the requisite specification to override the IC Special Rules rule that keeps the On Target rule from extending its benefits to the IC.
It's very important for a unit special rule to include "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or something similar. Nearly all unit rules do this and it is important that they do so if they intend for the benefit of the rule to extend to attached ICs!
Charistoph wrote: For one, when it comes to the relationship between ICs, units, and their Special Rules, no distinction is made between USRs, unit datasheet special rules, formation datasheet special rules, and detachment command benefits. There are other distinctions between them, of course, but when it comes to the IC and unit relationship, there is none listed.
I don't understand this at all. It doesn't make any distinctions because none are needed.
USRs > IC's get USRs if it is included in their datasheet.
Unit datasheet special rules > ICs do not inherently have unit datasheet special rules because they are an IC. If they join a unit, and there is a special rule effects that unit, refer to IC's and Special Rules section.
Formation datasheet special rules > If the IC is part of the formation, the IC would get the formation datasheet special rule.
Detachment command benefits > IC gets the command benefits if in that detachment.
What more distinctions need to be made from this point?
Charistoph wrote: For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.
On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).
This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again,
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain." So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!!
At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.
All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless!
Since the Special Rule is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it can also include IC's if they pass the checklist!
Unfortunately, it does not pass the checklist. Which brings us to what you said down here.
Charistoph wrote: So, the belief that On Target cannot affect an IC because the rule affects the unit before deployment carries no weight unless you make that same determination for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc., which then puts a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference.
The same distinction IS MADE for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc. When have I said otherwise?
An IC can not gain the benefits of Stubborn until he joins the unit. When he joins the unit and it triggers, it must pass the checklist. It passes.
How did that sequence right there, "put a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference'?
Charistoph wrote: This is why Mr. Shine asks the question, "How is the IC considered part of the unit for Stubborn, but not for On Target?" Both rules state they affect a target, and the target in question is a unit carrying this special rule, the IC is part of the unit. So why is one different just because it came from a detachment?
We can go through this again I suppose.
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = Includes IC's
"Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation" is a Special Rule and like all Special Rules, must pass a checklist.
What is the precedence set by the rulebook for multitudes of special rules including (Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc, etc, etc)?
The BRB wants a clause that includes IC's.
In the Rulebook, it says that for IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must be specified (like Stubborn).
Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale... Check
Tank Hunters: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls... Check
Slow and Purposeful: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot... Check
On Target:Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation... ?
Why does 'On Target' all of a sudden, get special snowflake treatment???
Charistoph wrote: So Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful would not work then, because they are not written in to the IC's special rule, but only Stubborn? This also puts that same rule you are using to a lie, because it ignores HOW Stubborn "specifies" it includes the IC with the unit. It also adds in rules that a specific phrase, AND ONLY THAT PHRASE, is the trigger for the relationship. It also ignores the second next set of rules regarding Ongoing Effects.
Keep in mind, Stubborn does not mention Independent Characters at all, nor states anything about models benefiting from this rule. It simply states a unit is affected and provides conditions for that effect to come in to play. Fleet is no different in this respect, aside from the fact that its conditions are steeper ('at least one model' versus 'all models in the unit').
Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and purposeful DOES WORK. They pass the checklist "AS IN STUBBORN". There is a clause that explicitly lets it work!
There is no such clause for 'On Target'
Charistoph wrote: No, we do not. Your checklist is flawed by a slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission, only some of which I have detailed in this post, but I have detailed earlier in this thread. This argument has been used several times throughout this thread.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." is a two-way condition. It is meant to allow an IC to affect a unit or for a unit to affect an IC. This is important for a UNIVERSAL special rule that could be carried by any model, be it a grunt Tactical Squad Marine or a Lord of War Chapter Master, but still be intended to affect all models in the unit.
This next part gets more in to intentions and logic than any actual rule written, but then including Independent Characters in with Stubborn takes a step in that direction anyway.
However, this is a redundant statement and clause for a rule that will be carried only by units so long as it exists. There are no ICs in the Shadowstrike Kill Team or the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. Many special rules unique to units also do not have ICs in the unit. Why add a clause that would allow an IC to give this benefit to a unit it has joined when no IC exists which can possess it (such as in On Target)? What if a rule is intended to not allow an IC to share it with the unit, but the unit would still share it with the IC (such as Codex Marines Demi-Company Objective Secured)?
Ponder this logic path and consider where it leads you.
Can the IC Charge the turn it arrives with the Vet squad? No, he doesn't have the rule.
-He is not a part of the formation > he doesn't have the rule.
-The formation gives the rule to the unit. Is he part of the unit? Yes.
-But Unit Special Rules don't confer unless they explicitly say so.
-Since it is a Unit Special Rule, refer to IC and Special Rule section for guidance. It provides an example if you need one.
It really is that simple. You are the one with a "slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission".
I think you need to do some more pondering. Take as long as you need. Lets just extend each other the courtesy of admitting we are wrong, if we come to that realization. There is nothing wrong with it, instead of arguing for arguments sake.
I will extend you the same.
Rasko wrote: I don't understand this at all. It doesn't make any distinctions because none are needed.
USRs > IC's get USRs if it is included in their datasheet.
Unit datasheet special rules > ICs do not inherently have unit datasheet special rules because they are an IC. If they join a unit, and there is a special rule effects that unit, refer to IC's and Special Rules section.
Formation datasheet special rules > If the IC is part of the formation, the IC would get the formation datasheet special rule.
Detachment command benefits > IC gets the command benefits if in that detachment.
What more distinctions need to be made from this point?
That is correct. They get the rules they possess from their detachment, or datasheet. That is the main distinction between them all, but for the relationship between ICs and units, source of the rule does not matter.
Charistoph wrote: For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.
On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).
This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again,
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain." So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!!
At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.
All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless!
Again, You are confusing things here. You are confusing gaining the rule itself and being affected by the rule as being the same thing. This is not true, nor could it actually work this way.
Triggers are meaningful, without them, we could execute those rules any time we choose. Remember what I said about Stubborn. Stubborn cannot benefit a unit in any other situation than when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Any other Leadership Test or rule that references Leadership, Stubborn is completely, 100% useless.
And again, remember there is a rule regarding ongoing effects, which means they had to affect the unit AND the IC in the first place in order for the IC to still be affected when it leaves AND when not be affected if it joins afterward.
Rasko wrote: We can go through this again I suppose.
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = Includes IC's
"Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation" is a Special Rule and like all Special Rules, must pass a checklist.
What is the precedence set by the rulebook for multitudes of special rules including (Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc, etc, etc)?
The BRB wants a clause that includes IC's.
In the Rulebook, it says that for IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must be specified (like Stubborn).
Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale... Check
Tank Hunters: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls... Check
Slow and Purposeful: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot... Check
On Target:Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation... ?
Why does 'On Target' all of a sudden, get special snowflake treatment???
I have explained this. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two for the rule and giving it more authority than it has.
Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all?
Rasko wrote: Can the IC Charge the turn it arrives with the Vet squad? No, he doesn't have the rule.
Posession of the rule is not noted as a requirement in this rule. See Counter-Attack, Fleet, and Move Through Cover for such examples.
Rasko wrote: -He is not a part of the formation > he doesn't have the rule.
Never said he was, but when joined to a unit that is, he does count as a model of the formation for the requirements of the rule, i.e. a model of a Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Rasko wrote: -The formation gives the rule to the unit. Is he part of the unit? Yes.
-But Unit Special Rules don't confer unless they explicitly say so.
-Since it is a Unit Special Rule, refer to IC and Special Rule section for guidance. It provides an example if you need one.
It really is that simple. You are the one with a "slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission".
Stubborn only references "a unit" as receiving the benefit of the rule. "At least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use for the special rule, not permission to spread the rule through the unit. The only way an Independent Character can be referenced in Stubborn is if we consider it as part of "a unit".
At no point in the Special Rules section of the IC rule does it literally state that phrase as being the requirement. It is this unsupportable preconception to which I reference. You have a skewed perspective in that when a model receives the rule, it is immediately affected by it instead of when the rule actually tells you to apply it.
Rasko wrote: I think you need to do some more pondering. Take as long as you need. Lets just extend each other the courtesy of admitting we are wrong, if we come to that realization. There is nothing wrong with it, instead of arguing for arguments sake.
I will extend you the same.
I have pondered this numerous times, as I have stated. Whereas it seems that you did not ponder the last couple of questions I left you. Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind because they usually require a perspective that cannot be supported by the written rules because they are either completely made up or ignoring whole sections of rules.
I thought you were trying to learn, but it seems you are not and would rather rant.
A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?
Incorrect. The differences between A and B are that A is two way, while B is one way. If an IC has rule A, it will affect the unit. If the IC has B, it will not affect the unit, because only that model will have the rule, not the unit. However, If the unit has either A or B, then any attached ICs would benefit. But I've already been over this with you.
A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.
According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?
Incorrect. The differences between A and B are that A is two way, while B is one way. If an IC has rule A, it will affect the unit. If the IC has B, it will not affect the unit, because only that model will have the rule, not the unit. However, If the unit has either A or B, then any attached ICs would benefit. But I've already been over this with you.
I was only talking about the scenario from the perspective of the joined IC [as I indicate in red] so there was no need for correction as I was not incorrect.
The IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that unit special rules are not 'two-way sharing' or even 'one-way sharing' by default. By default there is 'no sharing'.
Spoiler:
the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
All unit special rules target the unit. So nothing is specific about a unit special rule that targets a unit. It is merely being a generic unspecified unit special rule.
Your argument is that being a unit rule (and therewith targeting a unit) is enough to override the IC Special Rules rule that prevents the unit special rule from extending to the IC.
However, the IC Special Rules rule has already made it clear that special rules that target units (ie unit rules) do not extend their influence to the attached IC. So a special rule is going to have to do something beyond being simply a unit rule (that already by definition targets a unit) to override the IC Special Rules rule.
Your argument is wrong because No Target does not fulfill the requirement of being specific and does not have something "specified in the rule itself (as in stubborn)" that regulates how the IC and the host unit influence each other with their special rules.
The clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is not some random clause. It is exactly functioning to specifically define how the IC and the host unit influence each other with their respective special rules. The clause is where the magic is happening.
In this case the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" changes it from the default "no-sharing" to a full "two-way sharing" of the influence of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.
The clause is very significant and that is why, as I have shown earlier, the clause is mandatorily featured in all unit special rules that want "two-way sharing".
#################################
Again, by default, there is no sharing of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.
Taking a unit rule (like the No Target unit special rule) and trying to override the IC Special Rules rule by saying that the unit is being targeted is not specific enough. All unit special rules target the unit and the IC Special Rules rule has set all unit special rules to not extend their effect to the IC unless specifically overridden (as in Stubborn).
It requires specific language along the lines of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to open up the 'two-way' extending of the benefits of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.
The On Target rule simply does not have anything specific in it that would override the IC Special Rules rule which prevents unit special rules from extending to ICs and enforces "no sharing".
And similarly the (B) version of the Night Vision rule will not override the IC Special Rules rule which prevents unit special rules from extending to ICs.
Charistoph wrote: Again, You are confusing things here. You are confusing gaining the rule itself and being affected by the rule as being the same thing. This is not true, nor could it actually work this way.
I am not confusing anything. I have never said that gaining the rule is the only way to be affected by the rule. NOT ONCE.
Charistoph wrote: Triggers are meaningful, without them, we could execute those rules any time we choose. Remember what I said about Stubborn. Stubborn cannot benefit a unit in any other situation than when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Any other Leadership Test or rule that references Leadership, Stubborn is completely, 100% useless.
You and I both know I said that triggers were meaingless in the context of determining who has the special rule itself. Not who benefits from the special rule.
Obviously triggers are important when determining when abilities go off. Is that a joke? I said that the IC would gain the benefit of the Unit Special Rule, even though he does not have the rule itself.
However, he must pass the checklist because it is a Unit Special Rule.
Charistoph wrote: And again, remember there is a rule regarding ongoing effects, which means they had to affect the unit AND the IC in the first place in order for the IC to still be affected when it leaves AND when not be affected if it joins afterward.
What are you even talking about here? We are talking about Unit Special Rules. I don't understand how ongoing effects come into play at all in this specific situation.
Charistoph wrote: I have explained this. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two for the rule and giving it more authority than it has.
Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all?
So we are once again, back to
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = "Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation"
The phrase doesn't specifically state "Independent Characters". It doesn't have to!
You completely ignore "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
The BRB explicitly provided an EXAMPLE, that literally ALL THE OTHER UNIT SPECIAL RULES follow, in how they want a clause if a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, affects an IC.
This is an example that is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.
So I ask you again, why does "On Target" get special snowflake treatment?
Charistoph wrote: Posession of the rule is not noted as a requirement in this rule. See Counter-Attack, Fleet, and Move Through Cover for such examples.
Once again, I never denied that possession of the rule is a requirement. I was stating that it doesn't have it, for checklist purposes.
Charistoph wrote: Never said he was, but when joined to a unit that is, he does count as a model of the formation for the requirements of the rule, i.e. a model of a Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Once again, I agree. He does count as a model in the unit. IE. a member of Vanguard Veteran Squad of Strikeforce Formation.
That doesn't mean he magically gets to bypass the checklist.
Charistoph wrote: Stubborn only references "a unit" as receiving the benefit of the rule. "At least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use for the special rule, not permission to spread the rule through the unit. The only way an Independent Character can be referenced in Stubborn is if we consider it as part of "a unit".
At no point in the Special Rules section of the IC rule does it literally state that phrase as being the requirement. It is this unsupportable preconception to which I reference. You have a skewed perspective in that when a model receives the rule, it is immediately affected by it instead of when the rule actually tells you to apply it.
It is here, where your own unsupported preconceptions come into play. The BRB sets a precedent that you can follow, by providing an example.
That this is a precedent is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.
The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we do some mental hoops.
Also, don't take what people say out of context in an argument. It makes you look foolish. Context is everything.
Charistoph wrote: I have pondered this numerous times, as I have stated. Whereas it seems that you did not ponder the last couple of questions I left you. Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind because they usually require a perspective that cannot be supported by the written rules because they are either completely made up or ignoring whole sections of rules.
I thought you were trying to learn, but it seems you are not and would rather rant.
16 pages in, and shockingly enough one or the other side wont back down.
RAW: the "as in stubborn" is an example, and not an exhaustive list. Similarly Stubborn NEVER specifies "IC" - it only includes an IC by relying upon the "is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes" line so oft quoted. As such, when the rule affects the unit, it MUST affect the IC as well, otherwise we break this rule. At no point does it "confer", as much as Col likes to pretend confer means benefit.
To those against: Ork painboy. Affects warboss, yes or no? IF you are being consistent you MUST answer "NO"
nosferatu1001 wrote: RAW: the "as in stubborn" is an example, and not an exhaustive list. Similarly Stubborn NEVER specifies "IC" - it only includes an IC by relying upon the "is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes" line so oft quoted. As such, when the rule affects the unit, it MUST affect the IC as well, otherwise we break this rule. At no point does it "confer", as much as Col likes to pretend confer means benefit.
No one is denying that Unit Special Rules affect the IC. IT DOES.
And no one is denying that Stuborn specifically specifies "IC". IT DOESN't.
But it doesn't have to because it provides an example that is further cemented by the fact that every other special rule in the BRB follows that example.
Counter-attack: If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that...
Crusader: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...
Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes...
Fearless: Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special...
And ALL THE REST follow this example.
Why is "On Target" given special snowflake treatment in regards to IC's and Unit Special Rules?
The only way your line of thinking makes any sense is if we go through a mental hoop that says:
"Lets just ignore that all the Unit Special Rules in the BRB follow this example. Lets ignore the fact it specifically included '(as in the Stubborn special rule)' written into the rule itself. Since it doesn't explicitly state that I can't include 'a Vet Squad' as a clase, I'm going to include it anyway. Hurray! It works now since it doesn't say it doesn't."
nosferatu1001 wrote: To those against: Ork painboy. Affects warboss, yes or no? IF you are being consistent you MUST answer "NO"
Why are those two things connected? Read the ability.
Dok's Tools state: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
I'll hold your hand.
Lets go through the checklist.
Is it a unit special rule? Yes.
Then the IC must go through the checklist.
Does it have a clause of some sort, as per the requirement in the BRB via the "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."? Yes.
That clause is "ALL MODELS IN HIS UNIT"
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "All models in his unit have the Feel..."
Is a unit of Vanguard Veterans composed of models? Yes
Do these models have the ability to charge? Yes
IS the IC a normal member of the unit for this purpose? Yes
Can the unit declare a charge? YES
Again: it is not an exhaustive list. It is not the only way the ICs inclusion can be specific. We know this to be a truism. A list of items conforming to the example does not make it any less of an example, nor elevate it to the special status that it is the ONLY way to include - as given by Doks tools. Neatly showing that special rules do not have to follow the example as if it were the only way
You neartly disproved your own argument. I hope you noticed that.
Is a unit of Vanguard Veterans composed of models? Yes
Do these models have the ability to charge? Yes
IS the IC a normal member of the unit for this purpose? Yes
Wait. Why did it bypass "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."?
Before charge, you must pass the checklist.
You ignore it, as if it doesn't even exist entirely.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Again: it is not an exhaustive list. It is not the only way the ICs inclusion can be specific. We know this to be a truism. A list of items conforming to the example does not make it any less of an example, nor elevate it to the special status that it is the ONLY way to include - as given by Doks tools. Neatly showing that special rules do not have to follow the example as if it were the only way
You neartly disproved your own argument. I hope you noticed that.
You're right, it isn't an exhaustive list. It ISN'T the only way the inclusion of IC's can be specified.
The requirement of "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." IS NOT "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...".
The requirement of "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." is that it needs a CLAUSE.
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE =/= "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
How does this disprove anything I've said previously? How can you not agree that there is a fundemental difference between those 3 quotes.
Two of them EXPLICITLY have a clause that include models in his unit!
The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we go through a mental hoop of
Unit that contains at least one model with this special rule = All models in his unit = A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule.
Or if we go through a mental hoop of
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "All Models in the Vanguard Veteran Squad with..."
Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.
Your requirement for a clause is made up, thats why.
And, the unit is composed of models. Each of them has permission to charge. How is that not equal to "at least one model"? In fact it is better than that - EVERY model has it!
We're at an impasse.
I'll follow the rules that states the unit can charge, and has specific allowance to do so, and the ICs presence does not alter that the UNIT is given the special rule "may charge" (paraphrased, obviously) as they are included as a normal member of the unit
Units declare charges The ICs presence does not alter that.
Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.
and there is the fault!
Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.
the often mentioned clause :
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...
is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.
Anything 16 pages long obviously doesn't have a clear answer, so verify in advance with your TO for competitive games and come to a friendly consensus with your opponent if you're trying to play it with conferred benefits in friendly game.
FWIW Zealot, Stubborn etc. are probably worded the way they are because there are ICs with those rules that can grant them to a squad by joining it. The ...On Target rule, meanwhile, isn't present anywhere else.
Still, Stubborn doesn't actually explicitly call out ICs, it is only through the IC rules telling us the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes (all, not some) that we know ICs are affected by Stubborn. Similarly, an IC in a Vanguard Veteran squad with ...On Target or in an Assault Squad with First the Fire, Then the Blade may assault after deep striking, an IC in a unit from the GK formation may deep strike turn 1, and a non-KDKIC in a unit with Blood For the Blood God generates Blood Tithe points when killing a Character in a challenge. So much for "Special Snowflake", eh?
Rasko wrote: It seems like we aren't understanding each other. So let's break it down, step-by-step. And hopefully, come to an agreement.
Charistoph wrote: Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."
In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.
In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.
I agree 100% with you here. There is nothing wrong with this.
The IC passes the only requirement of needing to be part of a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad. So, as per the bonus, this means the entire unit gets to charge.
This will, obviously, include the IC because the IC is a part of the unit.
I'm with you so far.
HOWEVER, under SPECIAL RULES in the rulebook, it states:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Now, what does this mean?
I'm not saying that the IC is not a part of the Vet squad. The IC would, normally, get the ability to charge.
However, that sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.
Because IC's and Special Rules must pass a final checklist, as per the rulebook.
You can't just stop at giving the IC charge because it is a SPECIAL RULE OF THE UNIT! And like all unit SPECIAL RULES and IC's, it must pass an additional checklist of having a CLAUSE. Like Stubborn has.
Please let me know if we still don't understand each other or if I am misinterpreting you.
So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?
I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.
nekooni wrote: So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?
I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.
Blind is an effect under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects". Do not confuse effects and Unit Special Rules. It is not a Unit Special Rule. We are talking about the Special Rules section.
Under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects", it talks about things like Blind and how it effects IC's and Units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
nosferatu1001 wrote: And, the unit is composed of models. Each of them has permission to charge. How is that not equal to "at least one model"? In fact it is better than that - EVERY model has it!
I'll follow the rules that states the unit can charge, and has specific allowance to do so, and the ICs presence does not alter that the UNIT is given the special rule "may charge" (paraphrased, obviously) as they are included as a normal member of the unit
Units declare charges The ICs presence does not alter that.
A clause is required because there is, universally, a clause in any Unit Special Rule. This precedent can be seen in any Unit Special Rule. Even your favorite, Dok's Tools, had a clause. Every Unit Special Rule in the BRB has a clause. It says "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),...". What kind of specification does "As in Stubborn" mean? Looking at Stubborn, we know it means a clause. We look at any Unit Special Rule in any codex and it has a clause. It is a constant, set in all rulebooks. Including Dok's Tools in the Ork Rulebook.
When I proved there was a clause in Dok's Tools, you randomly decided that there doesn't need to be a clause anymore.
And as a matter of fact, you then go to say that you decided to just forget about "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." entirely because the IC is already a part of the unit, thus somehow bypassing the need to pass this checklist at the time the unit charges.
_ghost_ wrote: Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.
the often mentioned clause :
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...
is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.
I understand your point of view. It is back to...
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Like nosferatu1001 said, if this is your stance, we're at an impasse.
I will not agree that "a Vet Sqaud" is an explicitly stated clause, like those other 2 quotes. I don't see how they are similar at all.
Two of them are fundementally different than the other one.
I understand your point of view. It is back to...
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Like nosferatu1001 said, if this is your stance, we're at an impasse.
I will not agree that "a Vet Sqaud" is an explicitly stated clause, like those other 2 quotes. I don't see how they are similar at all.
Two of them are fundementally different than the other one.
While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.
That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.
Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.
Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.
nos, may I make a suggestion. For future cases instead of an Ork Painboy, what about Objective Secured?
At least col_impact is being consistent, when he said that a non-ObSec IC attached to an ObSec unit won't control if it is the only model from the unit within 3" of an objective.
_ghost_ wrote: While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.
That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.
Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.
Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.
Yes, we go back to this again. I have never once disagreed that the IC is a part of the squad.
For all rules purposes, the IC is considered a part of the unit. Normally, if the unit can charge, the IC would be able to charge with it, since they are one.
The only time this is not the case is if the ability to charge originates from a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. Because, like all UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must abide by this sentence in the rulebook.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Which brings us back to our impasse.
Does the Vanguard Vet Squad have the ability to charge from reserve via a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Is the IC considered a part of the the Vanguard Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Then it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist.
> Unlike some other people, I think we both agree on this so far.
And the impasse.
Your stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." passes this checklist.
My stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I have already stated my position in that the precedent set in every single rulebook out there, proves that "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
Happyjew wrote: At least col_impact is being consistent, when he said that a non-ObSec IC attached to an ObSec unit won't control if it is the only model from the unit within 3" of an objective.
Can you read OBSEC please? How does OBSEC change a thing? OBSEC must also follow the rules. OBSEC is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, granted by a Command Benefit in army list creation.
Only troop choices in your army gain OBSEC. An IC is not a troop choice and therefore doesn't gain OBSEC. An IC can then join a unit with OBSEC and since OBSEC is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it is possible for the IC to benefit from the UNIT SPECIAL RULE (SINCE IT IS A PART OF THE UNIT) IF IT PASSES THE CHECKLIST.
You can never just conveniently ignore "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.". OBSEC does not have a clause that lets IC's benefit. Therefore, IC's do not gain OBSEC. Does this mean that the unit magically loses OBSEC? No. It simply just means that the, word-for-word, "unit’s special rules (OBSEC) are not conferred upon the Independent Character".
_ghost_ wrote: While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.
That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.
Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.
Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.
Yes, we go back to this again. I have never once disagreed that the IC is a part of the squad.
For all rules purposes, the IC is considered a part of the unit. Normally, if the unit can charge, the IC would be able to charge with it, since they are one.
The only time this is not the case is if the ability to charge originates from a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. Because, like all UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must abide by this sentence in the rulebook.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Which brings us back to our impasse.
Does the Vanguard Vet Squad have the ability to charge from reserve via a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Is the IC considered a part of the the Vanguard Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Then it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist.
> Unlike some other people, I think we both agree on this so far.
And the impasse.
Your stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." passes this checklist.
My stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I have already stated my position in that the precedent set in every single rulebook out there, proves that "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?
The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.
_ghost_ wrote: While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.
That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.
Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.
Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.
Yes, we go back to this again. I have never once disagreed that the IC is a part of the squad.
For all rules purposes, the IC is considered a part of the unit. Normally, if the unit can charge, the IC would be able to charge with it, since they are one.
The only time this is not the case is if the ability to charge originates from a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. Because, like all UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must abide by this sentence in the rulebook.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Which brings us back to our impasse.
Does the Vanguard Vet Squad have the ability to charge from reserve via a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Is the IC considered a part of the the Vanguard Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Then it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist.
> Unlike some other people, I think we both agree on this so far.
And the impasse.
Your stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." passes this checklist.
My stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I have already stated my position in that the precedent set in every single rulebook out there, proves that "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?
The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.
_ghost_ wrote: I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?
Why do I care about the checklist? Because it tells you...
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." Any time a UNIT SPECIAL RULE affects an IC, you have to look at that sentence to see if the special rule is conferred upon the IC! Why am I looking at it? Because it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE and there is a IC in the UNIT! Therefore, fulfilling the two requirements of that sentence that force you to check before giving the ability to the IC!
How is it not necessary?
_ghost_ wrote: The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.
No. It hasn't been covered. That was what our impasse was about... I guess we'll go over this to the impasse again...
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Can the Vet Squad charge from reserve? Yes.
Is the IC part of the Vet Squad when determining if the IC can charge from reserve? Yes.
However, is that an ability from a Unit Special Rule?
If yes, it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist. Why must it pass the checklist?
Because of this sentence in the rulebook.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." So, is the ability to charge from reserve a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Then we have to see if it is specified in the special rule.
Aaaand, we arrive at our impasse... again...
My stance was
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE =/= "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Because of the precedent for Unit Special Rules and IC's already established in every single codex and the BRB by having a clause, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist since it does not have a clause.
Your stance was that it did.
nosferatu1001 stance was, after realizing that Dok's Tools had a clause, that there is no need for the clause at all and we can use whatever-the-hell definition for "unless specified in the special rule" we bloody want. And just ignore the precedent set by every Unit Special Rule in all the books, for having a clause, because it doesn't explicitly state that you need a clause even though every other Unit Special Rule has a damn clause.
An impasse is any situation in which the parties involved can't, or won't, move forward or make any sort of progress. We both just re-iterated what we said to the impasse...
I will also note this for everyone else. The ITC and all related Tournements have ruled exactly the same as I have. While this doesn't exactly mean much, it definitely doesn't mean nothing either. It is the biggest tournement format in the world after all...
"Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc."
That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit
nekooni wrote:
So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?
I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.
Blind is an effect under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects". Do not confuse effects and Unit Special Rules. It is not a Unit Special Rule. We are talking about the Special Rules section.
Under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects", it talks about things like Blind and how it effects IC's and Units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You are missing the point here.
It is entirely relevant.
1. Blind IS a special rule. Looking at it right now, under special rules in the BRB.
Blind has a trigger (hit by a blind weapon)
A target (the unit)
An effect (WS 1 BS 1)
We know that this affects ICs as we are told this.
It is PROOF that a special rule that affects the "unit" can affect attached ICs as well.
On Target has a trigger (Be a vanguard Vet squad)
A target (the unit)
An effect (May assault)
Why is this any different? They are both Special rules.
Stubborn has a trigger (Contain one model with the stubborn rule)
A target (the unit)
An effect (no leadership modifiers)
All these rules have the same target, The "unit" which includes ICs. Any restriction you apply to one you have to apply to the rest.
They are entirely relevant to the discussion, That's why they were brought up.
harkequin wrote: You are missing the point here.
It is entirely relevant.
1. Blind IS a special rule. Looking at it right now, under special rules in the BRB.
Blind is a special rule. But it is not a Unit Special Unit! For effects, you look at the section for Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects.
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example."
That is the specific entry and it details how things like a Unit Special Rule and Effect are different.
All the rest of the things you wrote, is entirely meaningless because they are under different rulings sections.
Stubborn > Independent Characters and Special Rules
Blind > Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
But yea. I'm done now. I think I've explained my side of the story in as much detail as possible. It is clear that neither side is willing to concede. Everyone is just repeating whatever they said, over and over again. That is fine. We can agree to disagree.
I'm going to follow ITC rulings on this one. "Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc." That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit
I'm done with this thread. You guys keep playing your game however you want. Just don't go to any tournaments and expect for that to work. Peace.
Rasko - Ob sec asks if a unit with Obsec is within 3"
Measure to the IC. Have you measured to the Unit. Yes or No?
Assume the IC is within 3" - is the unit within 3"? Yes or No?
Your checklist is never once invoked, as ObSec gives not two jots about the models. It is concerned with the unti. Same as On Target. It is concerned solely with the unit
It is INDISPUTABLE that the Unit has the On target rule
It is INDISPUTABLE that untis declare charges
THe VVS may declare the charge. This is proven.
Blind is a special rule. But it is not a Unit Special Unit! For effects, you look at the section for Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects.
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example."
That is the specific entry and it details how things like a Unit Special Rule and Effect are different.
Stop moving the goalposts. It's irrelevant.
Blind is a special rule. By your logic it does not pass the special rule checklist. Yet we are told in the BRB that it does affect the IC.
Therefore your logic must be flawed.
All the rest of the things you wrote, is entirely meaningless because they are under different rulings sections.
Stubborn > Independent Characters and Special Rules
Blind > Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
They are relevant because, Blind is a special rule, it has an ongoing effect CAUSED BY THE SPECIAL RULE.
It is still a special rule.
Your checklist is selective, you are finding reasons not to include blind in the checklist because it doesn't suit you.
I'm going to follow ITC rulings on this one.
"Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc."
That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit
Good for you!
I'm going to follow the ETC rulings on this one. 11. Rules and abilities that call out a specific unit, or rules that call out for a specific units faction ordetachment, like the -Rites Of Teleportation- from the Nemesis Strike Force calls for a Unit fromthat Detachment, -Objective Secured- which calls out a Troop Unit or -First The Fire, Then The Blade- from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force calls out an Assault Squad, work regardless if anIC has joined that unit or not, as the unit makeup does not change.
Sorry guys, but i'm not going to be arguing with anyone anymore under any circumstances because I said I was done.
But it's a good thing we are on different continents then!
I don't need to worry about it at all being on NA. And you do, being on EU. Worked out perfectly, for us two anyway.
That two big organizations ruled it differently is quite telling in how ambiguous the rules are.
The simple thing to do is NA = ITC ruling. EU = ETC ruling. Since I'm never going to go to any ETC tournaments.
Rasko wrote: Sorry guys, but i'm not going to be arguing with anyone anymore under any circumstances because I said I was done.
But it's a good thing we are on different continents then!
I don't need to worry about it at all being on NA. And you do, being on EU. Worked out perfectly, for us two anyway.
Pretty much. Respective tournament circuits seem to agree with us
So based on the people arguing with Rasko, I will henceforth using a group of 10 Deathmarks with a Destroy Lord attached, thus granting them Preferred Enemy. Now I can Deep Strike in on your turn, fire 20 shots, wounding on 2+ and re-rolling! Goodbye to whatever you just Deep Struck onto the board!
EnTyme wrote: So based on the people arguing with Rasko, I will henceforth using a group of 10 Deathmarks with a Destroy Lord attached, thus granting them Preferred Enemy. Now I can Deep Strike in on your turn, fire 20 shots, wounding on 2+ and re-rolling! Goodbye to whatever you just Deep Struck onto the board!
Are you being sarcastic?
That's a legitimate tactic. In fact the competitive DnD combo adds in the gauntlet of the conflagrator, S7 AP2 template , re-rolling ones interception is necrons go-to insurance against wraithguard deepstriking !
I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.
EnTyme wrote: I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.
But that's not an exploit. That's actually how the rule works and is a commonly accepted tactic.
EnTyme wrote: I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.
But that's not an exploit. That's actually how the rule works and is a commonly accepted tactic.
Yeah, this has been around for a while. Certainly since the Craftworlds Eldar codex dropped.
I just want to add if you look at the rules, they have clear wording.
Ethereal interception -> the unit can intercept and fire.
Hunters from Hyperspace -> Deathmark models in the unit wound on 2+.
Destroyer lord does not get to wound on 2+ with his staff of light, but is allowed to fire it.
This Tactic is also used (against drop pods) to allow a Turn 1 charge with the destroyer lord.
Enemy goes first, drop pod assaults, Deathmarks and D-lord deepstrike in on opponent turn.
On your turn the destroyer lord and deathmarks charge.
But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.
Side A: Ethereal Interception doesn't allow the Destroyer Lord to 'ride along' as it were because the rule isn't 'conferred' to him.
Side B: Ethereal Interception doesn't require that the Destroyer Lord possesses the rule in order to benefit from it because benefit =/= confer.
Then there's arguments about rules targeting units and specific clauses in certain examples... yadayada and around we go.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side A: Formation special rules can't be used on ICs attached to the effected units because those rules do not 'confer' to the character.
Side B: If the special rule targets 'the unit' then the rule does not need to 'confer' to the character in order for him to benefit from it.
It all really hinges on the term confer and what it means by 'Stubborn' being an example. It doesn't explain how Stubborn is an example so people quote specific clauses from the Stubborn rule that make it an example and the two sides disagree on which part of that rule makes it an example.
Charistoph wrote: Again, You are confusing things here. You are confusing gaining the rule itself and being affected by the rule as being the same thing. This is not true, nor could it actually work this way.
I am not confusing anything. I have never said that gaining the rule is the only way to be affected by the rule. NOT ONCE.
I quoted you saying that, or at least heavily implying that.
Rasko wrote:What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist. The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.
Rasko wrote:This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again, "Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain." So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!! At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.
All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent. All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent. The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE. The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless! Since the Special Rule is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it can also include IC's if they pass the checklist! Unfortunately, it does not pass the checklist. Which brings us to what you said down here. ... The same distinction IS MADE for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc. When have I said otherwise? An IC can not gain the benefits of Stubborn until he joins the unit. When he joins the unit and it triggers, it must pass the checklist. It passes. How did that sequence right there, "put a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference'?
I don't know how to read that any other way than that you considered a unit to be affected by the special rule upon creation, and that is why the IC would not be affected by it.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Triggers are meaningful, without them, we could execute those rules any time we choose. Remember what I said about Stubborn. Stubborn cannot benefit a unit in any other situation than when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Any other Leadership Test or rule that references Leadership, Stubborn is completely, 100% useless.
You and I both know I said that triggers were meaingless in the context of determining who has the special rule itself. Not who benefits from the special rule. Obviously triggers are important when determining when abilities go off. Is that a joke? I said that the IC would gain the benefit of the Unit Special Rule, even though he does not have the rule itself. However, he must pass the checklist because it is a Unit Special Rule.
Just so we are on the same page, what you do define as a "Unit Special Rule"?
As for the other thing, it did not read that way to me. As noted above, it seemed you were trying to say one thing, but it came across another way.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: And again, remember there is a rule regarding ongoing effects, which means they had to affect the unit AND the IC in the first place in order for the IC to still be affected when it leaves AND when not be affected if it joins afterward.
What are you even talking about here? We are talking about Unit Special Rules. I don't understand how ongoing effects come into play at all in this specific situation.
Special Rules provide effects when certain triggers occur, such as Stubborn requiring a Morale Check or Pinning Test before it can apply its ability to ignore negative Leadership modifiers.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: I have explained this. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two for the rule and giving it more authority than it has. Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all?
So we are once again, back to "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = "Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation" The phrase doesn't specifically state "Independent Characters". It doesn't have to! You completely ignore "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." The BRB explicitly provided an EXAMPLE, that literally ALL THE OTHER UNIT SPECIAL RULES follow, in how they want a clause if a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, affects an IC. This is an example that is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.
So I ask you again, why does "On Target" get special snowflake treatment?
Already explained. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two from the referenced rule and giving it more authority than it has.
Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all? It has to since the reference to Stubborn states that this rule specifically states it, otherwise the reference does not work. The only way "Independent Character" works is if it is considered part of the unit which has fulfilled the rule's requirements and triggers. That one phrase does not literally carry the weight you think it does.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Posession of the rule is not noted as a requirement in this rule. See Counter-Attack, Fleet, and Move Through Cover for such examples.
Once again, I never denied that possession of the rule is a requirement. I was stating that it doesn't have it, for checklist purposes.
Actually, that IS what you are stating. Not directly, but indirectly. Otherwise, why make such a big deal about the timing of how the unit gets the rule? Keep in mind, these same rules are applied to the units all in the same fashion and time. A Formation can provide all its units with Stubborn just as easily as a unit's datasheet or another rule such as Grim Resolve.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Stubborn only references "a unit" as receiving the benefit of the rule. "At least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use for the special rule, not permission to spread the rule through the unit. The only way an Independent Character can be referenced in Stubborn is if we consider it as part of "a unit".
At no point in the Special Rules section of the IC rule does it literally state that phrase as being the requirement. It is this unsupportable preconception to which I reference. You have a skewed perspective in that when a model receives the rule, it is immediately affected by it instead of when the rule actually tells you to apply it.
It is here, where your own unsupported preconceptions come into play. The BRB sets a precedent that you can follow, by providing an example. That this is a precedent is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example. The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we do some mental hoops. Also, don't take what people say out of context in an argument. It makes you look foolish. Context is everything.
I agree, context is everything. I do try to take what they state in context. So, why are you all taking this one phrase out of context? "At least one model with this special rule" is not synonymous with "every model in this unit gets this special rule and benefit, including Independent Characters."
Not all other unit-affecting special rules follow this example, though. All Universal Special Rules that are intended to be pass their benefits back and forth between IC and unit do state this. However, not all unit-affecting special rules use this, and when they do not, the IC is affected or not depending on if they are included as part of the conditions.
Stubborn When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
Counter-attack If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.
Move Through Cover A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra D6 when rolling to move through difficult terrain and is not slowed by charging through difficult terrain. In most circumstances, this will mean that, when moving, the unit rolls 3D6 and picks the highest roll. Furthermore, a model with the Move Through Cover special rule automatically passes Dangerous Terrain tests.
I have highlighted the above two rules that carry your phrase. I have highlighted in green the phrase. I have highlighted in blue that which affects the unit and would include any ICs attached to the unit, or would allow an IC with the rule to affect the unit. I have highlighted in red that which affects only the models which possess the rule.
The On Target special rule is not set up in this manner. It is setup like Stubborn where it states a unit as the target, a condition for that unit to meet, and then lists the benefits that unit receives. Requiring to having one condition in Stubborn is no different than stating they only benefit an IC when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: I have pondered this numerous times, as I have stated. Whereas it seems that you did not ponder the last couple of questions I left you. Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind because they usually require a perspective that cannot be supported by the written rules because they are either completely made up or ignoring whole sections of rules.
I thought you were trying to learn, but it seems you are not and would rather rant.
Who is ranting?
Than actually consider questions I asked and address them. You have chosen not to, so instead of trying to learn, you just go off.
EnTyme wrote:I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I even used it as an example in this thread. Now, keep in mind if that Destroyer Lord has a Staff of Light or Gauntlet of Fire, it will not be automatically Wound on a 2+, that is limited to just Deathmarks, not granted to the Deathmark unit. But yes, the Deathmark unit is allowed to do this. The only way to separate the Destroyer Lord from this affect is to separate it from the unit some how. Counter-Attack does this by restricting its bonuses to the models with the rule.
EnTyme wrote: But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.
At what point does Ethereal Interception require all models to have it as does Fleet? Or does it just name a unit to do it?
EnTyme wrote: But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.
"The unit can..."
Is the Destroyer Lord part of the unit? Yes. Hence, it doesn't matter whether or not he actually has the rule. He benefits from the effect due to being a part of the unit. The rule doesn't say "Part of the unit can..." and also say "A unit entirely composed of models with the Ethereal Interception rule can...".
Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.
and there is the fault!
Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.
the often mentioned clause :
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...
is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: FWIW Zealot, Stubborn etc. are probably worded the way they are because there are ICs with those rules that can grant them to a squad by joining it. The ...On Target rule, meanwhile, isn't present anywhere else.
Still, Stubborn doesn't actually explicitly call out ICs, it is only through the IC rules telling us the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes (all, not some) that we know ICs are affected by Stubborn. Similarly, an IC in a Vanguard Veteran squad with ...On Target or in an Assault Squad with First the Fire, Then the Blade may assault after deep striking, an IC in a unit from the GK formation may deep strike turn 1, and a non-KDKIC in a unit with Blood For the Blood God generates Blood Tithe points when killing a Character in a challenge. So much for "Special Snowflake", eh?
EnTyme wrote: But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.
"The unit can..."
Is the Destroyer Lord part of the unit? Yes. Hence, it doesn't matter whether or not he actually has the rule. He benefits from the effect due to being a part of the unit. The rule doesn't say "Part of the unit can..." and also say "A unit entirely composed of models with the Ethereal Interception rule can...".
Incorrect. And your responses underscore the critical shortcoming in your argument!
The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.
We know this for certain. It is right there in the rules and cannot be denied except by those who are being intentionally obtuse. An IC joined to a unit with unit special rules does not automatically benefit from the unit's special rules. The unit's special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend their benefit to the IC by default. The sharing of the benefits of unit special rules between IC and the joined unit needs to be turned on by some specific mechanic.
So now that we have established that there is no sharing of benefits by default, how do we get unit special rule benefit sharing turned on?
The IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
When you consider the logic involved, it's super easy to point to the exact thing in the Stubborn rule that turns on sharing between the IC and the joined unit.
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" turns on unit special rule sharing between IC and the joined unit.
An IC that had a unit special rule could now have the joined unit benefit from the special rule by virtue of the logic of that clause.
Vice versa works also. A unit with a unit special rule that is joined by an IC can extend the benefit of the special rule to the IC by virtue of that clause.
Without that clause (or something similar) the benefits of unit special rules are not shared between IC and the joined unit.
For a clause to work like Stubborn does, it does not need to stated in the exact same way, it just needs to logically accomplish the extending of the special rule to models attached to the unit.
For example, a Painboy's Dok's Tools can extend the benefit of the Painboy's special rule to "all models in the unit" which logically includes attached ICs
Spoiler:
As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule.
But, unit special rules without such a clause do not extend their benefits.
So, Objective Secured does not extend the benefits of its unit special rule to the attached IC.
On Target does not extend the benefits of its unit special rule to the attached IC.
And Ethereal Interception does not extend the benefit of its unit special rule to the attached IC.
How do we know this? Because the case of an IC joined to a unit with unit special rules (ie rules that say "a unit . . ." or that target a unit) has been explicitly laid out by the IC Special Rules rule as no sharing of benefits by default.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
It is important to adhere to the rules!
Of course, any of you are free to house rule how your play group wants to handle this, but the rules themselves are exceedingly clear on how to resolve the issue.
It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.
No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .
It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception on the D Lord. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.
It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.
No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .
It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.
Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.
Jesus H. Christ. I knew I shouldn't have posted again. I don't know why I keep doing this. You guys are taking an ambiguously worded and poorly written rule set expressly intended for casual, non-competitive play and trying to find absolute meaning. It isn't going to happen. 17 pages and no consensus.
Everyone I've ever played with considers any rule that says "the unit can" to mean the unit and any attached ICs. If your area plays this differently, awesome. If you're playing in a tournament, ask the organizer ahead of time.
It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.
No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .
It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.
Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.
Easy. By default, an IC doesn't.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
col_impact wrote: The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.
What you stated and what you quoted do not match. Either you are misquoting, mistaken, or misrepresenting, and you are not completely misquoting. Your quoted line does not state anything about special rules stating "a unit...", it address them all, nor does it not state anything about sharing or benefiting, only granting the rule. So, either you are reading more in to the sentence than it provides, or you are adding rules.
You then extends your assumptions to equate:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", to mean:
"all models in this this unit get this rule, including attached Independent Characters".
As you can see, these statements are not synonymous much less equal, therefore, this phrase in its entirety cannot possibly be a required phrase. Which means you are either reading more in to the sentence than anything actually provides, or you are adding rules.
It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.
No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .
It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.
Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.
Easy. By default, an IC doesn't.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Cool, that tells me special rules don't confer to the IC.
Now show me the rule that says an IC doesn't benefit from special rules
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)
or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.
Additionally many people here seem to not understand that ongoing effects and special rules are different things.
Lets take blind for example.
An unit can have the special rule blind, which causes an ongoing effect.
The unit itself is not blinded.
If the unit uses its special rule on another unit, and manages to affect it- that unit is blinded- the effect of a special rule but not the special rule itself.
Example:
Some models with the blind special rule do an attack that allows blind to have an effect on the target unit. The target unit is comprised of a vanguard veteran squad and an attached IC named BOB. BOB has the special rule stealth which has the wording "if at least one model in the unit has this special rule then they may get better cover saves". Since all the models in the unit, and the unit is made of models, and the rule specifies it grants the special rule(not an ongoing effect) to the unit if at least one model has it- then all the models in the unit have it. The unit fails its test, and is blinded. The unit does not gain the blind SPECIAL RULE, they have the effect of being blinded. Not the same thing.
The IC BOB next round leaves the unit. The IC while part of the unit had its own Army List Entry(unit name) which could be referenced for its profile, special rules, wargear, etc that was separate from the rest of the models in the unit- despite being in the same unit. When the IC leaves the unit, the unit no longer has the rule "Stealth" as the IC which was conferring the special rule to them by being part of the unit is no longer in the unit. However the ONGOING effect of blind still affects the IC and the vanguard veteran squad despite them now being not in the same unit due to ONGOING effects not being special rules and having their own separate rules from special rules.
additionally does anyone believe this formation which has:
scout squads
vanguard veterain squads
and gets two special rules:
on target
and whatever else
that both the special rules go to the vanguard veterans and scout squads, in effect giving the scouts the 'on target' rule which has no affect on them whatsoever, and the vanguard veterans the "whatever else rule" which affects scout squads and has no affect on the vanguard veterans whatsover? That some of you think that this, and by default many other, formations have models in them that get special rules that reference benefits to other units is utterly ridiculous. The wording 'vanguard veteran squad' does not mean "unit" or "if at least one model has this rule than unit can do x.." It is which models in the formation get the 'on target' rule, otherwise you have scouts with the on target rule- please explain how you think that works? [remember units are given command/formation benefits- and those benefits are given to the MODELS in those units]
Neither of the rules are UNIT rules because:
A- there are no such thing as unit rules the way some of you are describing- there are not rules "units" have that affect models. There ARE rules models have which affect units however.
B- the rules do not specify they affect the unit if at least one model has the rule. This is the only way to get a "unit special rule" which is actually a special rule possessed by model(s) that affect the unit they are in through the specific wording of the special rule itself e.g. stubborn, stealth, PE, etc.
No one has to quote, or show where it says an IC doesn't get to benefit from special rules of other models in an unit it joins- it has to be shown through a general, advanced, or even the specific special rule itself that the IC has permission to benefit from the special rule. Permissive rules set. the default wording of vanguard veteran squads 'on target' in no way has any wording that supports the attached IC benefiting. If it said "the unit" you would have a RAI point, but it doesn't. If 'on target' said anything to the effect of "if an unit contains at least one model with this special rule.." or "units containing at least one model with this special rule" then RAW the IC could do it. However, there are no rules anywhere supporting the IC benefits.
col_impact wrote: The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.
What you stated and what you quoted do not match. Either you are misquoting, mistaken, or misrepresenting, and you are not completely misquoting. Your quoted line does not state anything about special rules stating "a unit...", nor does it not state anything about sharing or benefiting. So, either you are reading more in to the sentence than it provides, or you are adding rules.
You then extends your assumptions to equate:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", to mean:
"all models in this this unit get this rule, including attached Independent Characters".
As you can see, these statements are not synonymous much less equal, therefore, this phrase in its entirety cannot possibly be a required phrase. Which means you are either reading more in to the sentence than anything actually provides, or you are adding rules.
The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?
blaktoof wrote: Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
Confer is also used with titles, degrees, or rights. So when used in context:
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit does not grant its special rules upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them." The sentence in question has the subject of the "unit's special rules", not its benefits, so the special rules themselves are the ones forbidden from being granted between the two.
To put it another way, a Blood Angel Captain does not have the rule/title Stubborn conferred upon it when joining a Dark Angel Tactical Squad.
So, the combined Special Rules list for the combined unit would look something like:
* And They Shall Know No Fear
* Independent Character (Blood Angel Captain)
* Furious Charge (Blood Angel Captain)
* Grim Resolve/"Stubborn" (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
* Combat Squad (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
It's not complete, mostly because I don't know the Blood Angel Captain's specific rules. However, when Stubborn does its job, it is not looking for or at "Marine" or "Sergeant", it is looking at "Dark Angel Tactical Squad". But Furious Charge is only looking at "Blood Angel Captain".
blaktoof wrote: or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.
Yes, and no. Yes, we are saying that is what the confer reference says, however, we are also saying that is what the Special Rules section is expressly forbidding from happening. Stubborn does not state at any point that it gives Stubborn to any model. However, by fulfilling the conditions, the unit benefits from the special rule as directed.
blaktoof wrote: Additionally many people here seem to not understand that ongoing effects and special rules are different things.
True, and they keep insisting an IC cannot be affected by a unit-affecting special rule without a snowflake phrase.
Special Rule is the cause. The benefit is the effect. Does that make it clear?
blaktoof wrote: additionally does anyone believe this formation which has:
scout squads
vanguard veterain squads
and gets two special rules:
on target
and whatever else
that both the special rules go to the vanguard veterans and scout squads, in effect giving the scouts the 'on target' rule which has no affect on them whatsoever, and the vanguard veterans the "whatever else rule" which affects scout squads and has no affect on the vanguard veterans whatsover?
On Time is the other rule, and it does not refer to the Scout Squads, it is exclusive for Veteran Vanguard Squad use.
But, yes. The Scout Squad actually possess both On Time... and ...On Target. That's how the Formation Special Rules operate. Heavy Support units from a Combined Arms Detachment still possesses the actual Objective Secured Rule, it just doesn't do anything for them. What you are saying that a Marine in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad does not get Stubborn from Grim Resolve because his Sergeant has a better Leadership than he does, and that does not match the language of these rules.
blaktoof wrote: Neither of the rules are UNIT rules because:
A- there are no such thing as unit rules the way some of you are describing- there are not rules "units" have that affect models. There ARE rules models have which affect units however.
B- the rules do not specify they affect the unit if at least one model has the rule. This is the only way to get a "unit special rule" which is actually a special rule possessed by model(s) that affect the unit they are in through the specific wording of the special rule itself e.g. stubborn, stealth, PE, etc.
Incorrect. Datasheets carry the unit's rules which are then applied (like a perfume) to the models in its unit. In addition, Formation Special Rules are specifically stated as being given to the units. The rules then state that entities receive the benefits, in the case of the above mentioned rules, they are units. I know you've fought against the idea that units cannot be targeted by rules, but everything else says otherwise.
B does not even deserve the title of red herring, it is so far off what is actually written that it does not count as a proper argument.
The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".
No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)
or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.
what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
"unless specified in the rule itself.."
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
col_impact wrote: The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?
Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".
No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition
Cool, so if I attach a Destroyer Cult Destroyer Lord to a unit of scarabs it grants Preferred Enemy and Wound/Pen re-roll to the scarabs?
I can keep detaching and attaching and each new unit has new special rules bestowed unto it.
Or did you not realize that granting or bestowing is a permanent gifting and no rule says "only while the IC remains attached"?
Seems like a broken way to play. Does your play group play that way?
I will stick with the way the BRB uses confer and adhere to "extend the benefit of the rule" which you figure out if you check out how any of the unit special rules actually play (check Stubborn for example). It may be a somewhat idiosyncratic usage of confer, but it's a game and games have idiosyncratic definitions.
Out of curiosity, does your play group require your models to actually shoot physical projectiles at one another? I just follow the BRB usage of "shoot" and roll dice.
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
Confer is also used with titles, degrees, or rights. So when used in context:
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit does not grant its special rules upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them." The sentence in question has the subject of the "unit's special rules", not its benefits, so the special rules themselves are the ones forbidden from being granted between the two.
To put it another way, a Blood Angel Captain does not have the rule/title Stubborn conferred upon it when joining a Dark Angel Tactical Squad.
So, the combined Special Rules list for the combined unit would look something like:
* And They Shall Know No Fear
* Independent Character (Blood Angel Captain)
* Furious Charge (Blood Angel Captain)
* Grim Resolve/"Stubborn" (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
* Combat Squad (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
It's not complete, mostly because I don't know the Blood Angel Captain's specific rules. However, when Stubborn does its job, it is not looking for or at "Marine" or "Sergeant", it is looking at "Dark Angel Tactical Squad". But Furious Charge is only looking at "Blood Angel Captain".
But units do not have special rules, models have special rules.
the combined unit is made of models. Those models have special rules for being from certain units, and certain formations/detachments.
The unit itself does not have some magical ongoing special rules that defacto benefit anything joined to it. Certain special rules have wording that benefit the unit as a whole when a model has that rule, but not the other way around.
There are just no rules supporting units having blanket special rules that are then given to everything attached.
The things you listed are all rules the models have.
again you are obviously confusing ongoing effects with special rule and trying to turn special rules into ongoing effects that an unit possess- which is not supported with any actual rules anywhere in any book.
The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".
No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)
or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.
what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
"unless specified in the rule itself.."
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.
col_impact wrote: The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?
Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
The unit's special rules would include rules of the type "a unit . . ."
We are not pointing to a model's special rules.
We are also not pointing to a weapon's special rules.
We are talking about special rules of the type "a unit . . ."
The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".
No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)
or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.
what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
"unless specified in the rule itself.."
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.
Seriously what is your point?
My point is you are breaking the tenents of the forum, and your argument has no merit. Which I demonstrated by showing you that how you are using confer is not how the book is using it when it references special rules, and then you look at the special rules it references. The special rules are benefiting the unit(made of models) because at least one model has it- they are not being granted to the other models(how you are using confer).
Spoiler:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.
col_impact wrote: The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?
Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
The unit's special rules would include rules of the type "a unit . . ."
We are not pointing to a model's special rules.
We are also not pointing to a weapon's special rules.
We are talking about special rules of the type "a unit . . ."
Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").
And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.
Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.
Seriously what is your point?
The BRB does not actually allow the unit to grant or bestow Stubborn to the IC. If it did, the IC would still have Stubborn when it detached since no rule removes the rule granted. That's what grant/bestow means.
The actual usage of confer in the BRB corresponds to "extend the benefit of the Special Rule".
If you feel otherwise, show how the rule Stubborn actually plays out when an IC joins a unit with Stubborn and then detaches without invalidating your argument.
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.
actually it does.
The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.
So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
.
We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.
Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.
Yes, it does give permission to benefit.
Right here.
"the IC is considered part of the unit"
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (which the IC is part of) may charge.
The special rule clause states
"the special rules are not conferred to the IC"
This is true. However the IC does not need the special rule.
On target says
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (including IC) may charge.
The only way people are arguing against this is by stating that "confer" does not mean "confer".
"confer" is not defined in the BRB, so we use the english language, in the english language "confer" means to grant/give/bestow.
Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").
And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.
The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.
Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.
Yes, it does give permission to benefit.
Right here.
"the IC is considered part of the unit"
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (which the IC is part of) may charge.
The special rule clause states
"the special rules are not conferred to the IC"
This is true. However the IC does not need the special rule.
On target says
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (including IC) may charge.
The only way people are arguing against this is by stating that "confer" does not mean "confer".
"confer" is not defined in the BRB, so we use the english language, in the english language "confer" means to grant/give/bestow.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules
that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains
its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound
armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part
of the Formation.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.
cool.
It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.
Can you refute this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Vanguard Veteran Squad is the unit. If you disagree you are missing a fundemental part of the game, detailed on page 2 under "General Principles :UNITS"
It says the Unit may charge.
It does not say "Vanguard Veterans models in the unit"
The rule says the Unit may charge,
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit may charge.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.
cool.
It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.
Can you refute this?
That's been refuted multiple times already.
Units charge.
Army list entries do not always equal Units. While an unit can be made of models from only one army list entry, it can also be made from models from more than one army list entry (Captain is 1 army list entry, Vanguard Veteran squad is a separate army list entry) Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.
Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?
Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.
on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.
Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.
cool.
It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.
Can you refute this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Vanguard Veteran Squad is the unit. If you disagree you are missing a fundemental part of the game, detailed on page 2 under "General Principles :UNITS"
It says the Unit may charge.
It does not say "Vanguard Veterans models in the unit"
The rule says the Unit may charge,
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit may charge.
Can you refute this?
The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule. The unit would have to be able to charge with the attached IC not benefitting from the On Target rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule.
Quote to back this up? this is no-where in the book.
Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do
You disprove yourself.
Units charge. ALEs don't. So how does the quote saying "Vanguard Veteran Squads may charge" refer to an ALE (which can't move charge or shoot) over a unit (which can charge) ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In order to not break the game, it refers to a unit.
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit
The unit may charge.
Neither of you has shown any rule support for why the above is untrue.
The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule.
Quote to back this up? this is no-where in the book.
Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do
You disprove yourself.
Units charge. ALEs don't. So how does the quote saying "Vanguard Veteran Squads may charge" refer to an ALE (which can't move charge or shoot) over a unit (which can charge) ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In order to not break the game, it refers to a unit.
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit
The unit may charge.
Neither of you has shown any rule support for why the above is untrue.
Sure I have.
The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule, per the IC Special Rules rule. The unit would have to be able to charge with the attached IC not benefitting from the On Target rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.
Rules that models have which have permission to affect the unit state that they do so specifically. as per stubborn, stealth, shrouded, etc, etc.
so the models from the vanguard veteran squad with the on target rule have permission to charge, however nothing grants permission to the unit by using the words "unit" anywhere within on target. Which is what is specifically required by the rules, to grant permission to do so. Which Col and others have quoted many times. So specifically the rule does not benefit the unit, and grants no permission to the unit to do anything nor an attached IC.
people seem to think that quote means something else based on using one of the OED definition of confer. But then never say what that rule then means- a poor argument on their part as not only does it not grant permission to benefit, but it only tries to create confusion about what a rule means out of context of the actual rule.
The above rule specifically calls out stubborn, and specifically states it has wording that allows it to confer to an IC.
Looking at stubborn it does not use the word confer at all, but rather benefits the unit if at least one model has it.
therefore the above shows that confer= the unit benefits if one model has the rule which must be specified in the rule itself as per stubborn, as per the example of how special rules possessed by models in an unit that an IC has joined does not have interact with the IC and the Unit it joined. Note how the above rule also differentiates the IC and the Unit when they are joined.
as 'on target' lacks any of this, it does not have any rules permission for the IC to benefit in any way from the rule.
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.
actually it does.
No, it does not. Just because you are in possession of something, does not mean everyone gets it.
"If your group has at least one person with a bannana, your group may have lunch." does not translate to "Everyone in the group gets a bannana". It just means your group gets to have lunch. 5 people could have a bannana, and the loner who joined the group just for that shift may not have a bannana, but he still gets lunch. If another rule is "Group 5 goes to lunch at 12:45pm", it doesn't care if the shift loner is only there for the day, he goes to lunch, too. Do you understand this?
blaktoof wrote:The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.
So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.
Special Rules When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
.
We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.
OR, we could go by what is actually written and then note that the reason it benefits the IC is because it is part of the unit when the unit is affected by the Special Rule and so is incorporated in to the effect instead of relying on one phrase that actually does not mean anything you said it does nor is referenced as being the specific conditional phrase any more than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").
And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.
The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.
No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.
blaktoof wrote:That's been refuted multiple times already.
Units charge.
Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.
And this has been refuted before, since you cannot follow a datasheet legend.
I don't need to show the IC profile on the datasheet. That is what "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is for.
A rule that uses a unit name is not referring to an army list entry or a datasheet, it is referring to an entity that can perform those actions or fulfill those requirements and has a name received from that datasheet. If that entity is a unit and only a unit, it is the same as saying "a unit with this name".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.
Yes, the title of the section "Unit Name" obviously isn't talking about naming a unit, it is only talking about an entry or datasheet. [/sarcasm]
Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").
And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.
The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.
No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.
Edited by Moderator - Rule Number One is Be Polite
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit."
It does not say . . .
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the individual models in the unit."
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the weapons on the models of the unit."
The IC Special Rules rule refers to the special rules of the unit and is dealing with the case of an IC joining a unit with special rules ascribed to the unit.
And in that case, the IC Special Rules rule declares that there is no sharing of special rules by default except for those rules that include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"
The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.
"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.
No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.
actually it does.
No, it does not. Just because you are in possession of something, does not mean everyone gets it.
"If your group has at least one person with a bannana, your group may have lunch." does not translate to "Everyone in the group gets a bannana". It just means your group gets to have lunch. 5 people could have a bannana, and the loner who joined the group just for that shift may not have a bannana, but he still gets lunch. If another rule is "Group 5 goes to lunch at 12:45pm", it doesn't care if the shift loner is only there for the day, he goes to lunch, too. Do you understand this?
blaktoof wrote:The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.
So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
.
We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.
OR, we could go by what is actually written and then note that the reason it benefits the IC is because it is part of the unit when the unit is affected by the Special Rule and so is incorporated in to the effect instead of relying on one phrase that actually does not mean anything you said it does nor is referenced as being the specific conditional phrase any more than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").
And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.
The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.
No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.
blaktoof wrote:That's been refuted multiple times already.
Units charge.
Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.
The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.
Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.
And this has been refuted before, since you cannot follow a datasheet legend.
I don't need to show the IC profile on the datasheet. That is what "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is for.
A rule that uses a unit name is not referring to an army list entry or a datasheet, it is referring to an entity that can perform those actions or fulfill those requirements and has a name received from that datasheet. If that entity is a unit and only a unit, it is the same as saying "a unit with this name".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.
Yes, the title of the section "Unit Name" obviously isn't talking about naming a unit, it is only talking about an entry or datasheet. [/sarcasm]
Oh.. wait.
multiple statements here are indicative that you have a very poor grasp on the rules of the game in regards to how units work, as well as special rules.
You accept the IC does not come from the datasheet of a different unit when joined to it, however refuse to accept this also means that an IC cannot be a model from a vanguard veteran squad when joined to such in an unit.
Your entire statement about bananas has nothing to do with anything being disussed, it is if you were saying the "Capitol of France is Paris, therefore I am correct" No one on either side has claimed that the IC actually gains or is granted the special rule of the unit it may be joined to-however you and others have insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting (despite the rules for stubborn which is used as a specific example for confer here not using that context at all) that this section actually refers to the IC being granted the rule- which is exactly the opposite if what you are arguing against. Which again has not been stated by anyone, and is certainly not implied by anyone who understands the IC does not benefit from 'on target'
You also are specifically confusing special rules with ongoing effects, the special rule 'on target' is not and does not create an ongoing effect- and no rules indicate it does or can.
additionally it was not refuted that ' Unit Name= Unit' In fact it was shown that unit name does not equal unit by default. If you join a techmarine to marneus calgar, is the techmarine marneus calgar? If I join an autarch to Eldrad, is the autarch now Eldrad? No. Because when an IC joins another unit it does not become a member of that units datasheet nor count as being from that units datasheet, nor count as being of that units name. Nothing in the rules indicates that it does. In fact the rules for ICs and joining units with special rules DIFFERNTIATES the IC and the Unit when they are joined for determing special rules and what gets to affect the other. Further disproving your entire statement in this regards. So yes, the unit name does not equal unit for rules terms, and yes an IC joined to an Unit is still separate when you figure out its special rules as has been quoted many times.
and no ' on target' meets none of the specified requirements to benefit an attached IC anywhere within any of the rules for 40k.
Haha. I'm glad I gave up arguing this. We are 18 pages long people...
Given the fact that the ITC and ETC have ruled differently, just shows that both sides have some sort of traction.
The next time someone asks a question like this, just tell them the truth.
The ITC has ruled against this working.
The ETC has ruled for this working.
Both sides can quote the BRB and show how they think their interpretation of the rules is correct. So much so, that two tournament circuits have even ruled in opposite directions. But there is no point because of these facts:
-My FLGS likes to use ITC rules.
-Any tournament I will ever go to uses ITC rules.
-Any home games will use ITC rules.
Since any game I will ever play, competitive or casual, will use ITC rules, my personal interpretation of the rules matter very little. The same goes for EU with the ETC.
So now, whenever anyone has a question like this, my go-to answer will literally just be
ITC = Against
ETC = For
Since there is no point trying to rules-lawyer this one way or the other, just leave personal opinion out of it completely.
STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT IT "WORKS" or "DOESN'T WORK" as a BLANKET STATEMENT.
What is the point of telling an NA guy that it works and when he goes to play, IT DOESN'T GAK'ING WORK?!. Or an EU guy that it doesn't work and when he goes to play, IT GAK'ING WORKS?!
Two tournament organizations have ruled DIFFERENTLY! There is no resolution here.
If you are in NA, follow ITC rulings since EU rulings matter gak-all.
If you are in EU, follow ETC rulings since NA rulings matter gak-all. If you think your region ruling is wrong, play your damn basement games however the bloody hell you want, and don't go to any tournaments or FLGS that use tournament rules then.
col_impact wrote:"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit."
It does not say . . .
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the individual models in the unit."
"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the weapons on the models of the unit."
Which is not what I was saying, intimating, or responding to, so why are you heading down that avenue of thought?
col_impact wrote:The IC Special Rules rule refers to the special rules of the unit and is dealing with the case of an IC joining a unit with special rules ascribed to the unit.
And in that case, the IC Special Rules rule declares that there is no sharing of special rules by default except for those rules that include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"
Actually it is dealing with both. The post you quoted earlier that we were referencing was not this sentence you are quoting now. Go back up and look at it.
This is the sentence I am addressing:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
This sentence never addresses "unit special rules", it addresses "unit's special rules" along with the "Independent Character's special rules". The phrase "unit special rules" is never actually used in the rulebook.
Both the Independent Character and the unit it joins both carry Special Rules with them. These rules are not granted to the other when the Independent Character joins the unit. That's all the restrictions this sentence is talking about. It references that there are exceptions to this by the same method that Stubborn uses. Stubborn never once states a rule being crossed over, only that a unit benefits when its conditions are met.
That's it. Not that complicated.
blaktoof wrote:multiple statements here are indicative that you have a very poor grasp on the rules of the game in regards to how units work, as well as special rules.
This ought to be rich when you think that a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" cannot be a unit, but only a datasheet or Army List Entry.
blaktoof wrote:You accept the IC does not come from the datasheet of a different unit when joined to it, however refuse to accept this also means that an IC cannot be a model from a vanguard veteran squad when joined to such in an unit.
"From a vanguard veteran squad"? Correct, ICs are not nor cannot be a model from a Vanguard Veteran Squad. Nor have I ever intimated as such. Which demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue as to what I have been saying if you think that has been part of my argument.
However, there is still the simple fact that when an IC joins a unit, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." He is not being counted as coming from the unit, but when a rule addresses the unit the IC has joined, it is including the IC model in all actions indicated as being from or happening to the unit.
Do you understand this concept?
blaktoof wrote:Your entire statement about bananas has nothing to do with anything being discussed, it is if you were saying the "Capitol of France is Paris, therefore I am correct" No one on either side has claimed that the IC actually gains or is granted the special rule of the unit it may be joined to-however you and others have insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting (despite the rules for stubborn which is used as a specific example for confer here not using that context at all) that this section actually refers to the IC being granted the rule- which is exactly the opposite if what you are arguing against. Which again has not been stated by anyone, and is certainly not implied by anyone who understands the IC does not benefit from 'on target'
My statement about bananas was a study of the language being used in Stubborn and in On Time. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that you did not recognize this.
We have not " insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting", we have stated it out right, since the other definition makes even less sense.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not discussed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not discussed upon the unit."
This doesn't make sense, and this version:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules do not have their opinions exchanged upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules do not have their opinions exchanged upon the unit." makes even less sense.
Therefore, only the interpretation of, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted to the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted to the unit." is the only accurate literal interpretation that can be reached.
In addition, nothing in the Stubborn special rule actually states any other models get its rules, much less Independent Characters. How does Stubborn specifically state that anything confers? It only addresses a unit receiving any benefit.
How then can an IC be perceived as gaining any benefit? Most simply, we remember that the IC is considered part of the unit when Stubborn recognizes its conditions are met and the effect that Stubborn applies includes the IC as being part of the unit.
blaktoof wrote:You also are specifically confusing special rules with ongoing effects, the special rule 'on target' is not and does not create an ongoing effect- and no rules indicate it does or can.
I am not. You simply do not understand what I'm saying. You are confusing the cause with the effect. Special Rules provide effects, benefits, and deficits.
On Target does not apply if the Vanguard Veteran Squad starts on the field of deployment. Its conditions only apply if the unit Deep Strikes. This effect is limited to only a turn the unit arrives from Deep Strikes.
blaktoof wrote:additionally it was not refuted that ' Unit Name= Unit' In fact it was shown that unit name does not equal unit by default. If you join a techmarine to marneus calgar, is the techmarine marneus calgar? If I join an autarch to Eldrad, is the autarch now Eldrad? No. Because when an IC joins another unit it does not become a member of that units datasheet nor count as being from that units datasheet, nor count as being of that units name. Nothing in the rules indicates that it does. In fact the rules for ICs and joining units with special rules DIFFERNTIATES the IC and the Unit when they are joined for determing special rules and what gets to affect the other. Further disproving your entire statement in this regards. So yes, the unit name does not equal unit for rules terms, and yes an IC joined to an Unit is still separate when you figure out its special rules as has been quoted many times.
It was refuted. Only a few, such as yourself, seem to think "unit name" does not reference a name of a unit. If "unit name" is not referencing a unit, what is it representing? Please quote the appropriate rule to support your answer, and this is an open book test.
Also you cannot seem to wrap your mind around the simple fact that both a unit and a model can both carry the same name. A Techmarine IC that joins Marneus Calgar becomes a Techmarine model with the Marneus Calgar model both operating as part of the Marneus Calgar unit. Just as a Chaplain which starts as a Chaplain model in a Chaplain unit (look it up, that's how the datasheet describes it) and joins a Vanguard Veteran Squad operates as a Chaplain model in a Vanguard Veteran Squad. The rules never suggest, much less state, any other operation.
And you think I have difficulties with the rules and how units work? Wow.
blaktoof wrote:and no ' on target' meets none of the specified requirements to benefit an attached IC anywhere within any of the rules for 40k.
It has no more, and no less, than Stubborn provides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rasko wrote: If you are in NA, follow ITC rulings since EU rulings matter gak-all.
If you are in EU, follow ETC rulings since NA rulings matter gak-all. If you think your region ruling is wrong, play your damn basement games however the bloody hell you want, and don't go to any tournaments or FLGS that use tournament rules then.
[sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:
And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...
Charistoph wrote: [sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:
And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...
Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.
Charistoph wrote: [sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:
And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...
Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.
Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.
Charistoph wrote: Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.
You do realise that the exact same thing will be said about you from the other side of the argument.
That is why this thread is 18 pages long. Neither side has accomplished a thing.
That is why I proposed we stop saying blanket statements like "it works" or "doesn't work", when it is pretty much region dependent.
Ok, so say you successfully convinced an NA guy that it works. He goes to a tournament and mid-game, they inevitably rule that it doesn't work. Who, exactly, wins in this scenario? Your ego?
Would you not rather tell the NA guy that both sides of the argument has not come to a consensus, but that his region has ruled that it doesn't work?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather help any future reader out (if that really is your intention), and tell him the latter.
Charistoph wrote: Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.
You do realise that the exact same thing will be said about you from the other side of the argument.
That is why this thread is 18 pages long. Neither side has accomplished a thing.
That is why I proposed we stop saying blanket statements like "it works" or "doesn't work", when it is pretty much region dependent.
Ok, so say you successfully convinced an NA guy that it works. He goes to a tournament and mid-game, they inevitably rule that it doesn't work. Who, exactly, wins in this scenario? Your ego?
Would you not rather tell the NA guy that both sides of the argument has not come to a consensus, but that his region has ruled that it doesn't work?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather help any future reader out (if that really is your intention), and tell him the latter.
If the guy is running in to a tournament, I hope he has read the tournament's rules. Not my fault if he hasn't. Not everyone in NA runs ITC just as not everyone in Europe runs ETC.
If I run in to a guy that plays by those rules, but neglects to tell me that, it is easy to point out to him that he is trying to apply House Rules after we started the game. To which point, we can either discuss or roll. Mostly it depends on how the guy is otherwise being at that point.
We could even roll now, if you want. I got a 6, what did you get? See the pointless of relying on the roll for an online discussion?
Charistoph wrote: If the guy is running in to a tournament, I hope he has read the tournament's rules. Not my fault if he hasn't. Not everyone in NA runs ITC just as not everyone in Europe runs ETC.
If I run in to a guy that plays by those rules, but neglects to tell me that, it is easy to point out to him that he is trying to apply House Rules after we started the game. To which point, we can either discuss or roll. Mostly it depends on how the guy is otherwise being at that point.
We could even roll now, if you want. I got a 6, what did you get? See the pointless of relying on the roll for an online discussion?
Hahaha. Where have I ever said that relying on the roll is the right way to go?
I have never said that every single minute tournament in NA uses ITC rules or that every single minute tournament in EU uses ETC rules.
I don't understand where you are getting these delusional ideas...
I simply stated that we should point out to future readers that ITC ruled for and ETC ruled against, since neither side can come to a proper consensus.
I said there are valid points to both sides in this argument. It is an ambiguous rule, which is further acknowledged by the fact that two of the biggest tournament organizations made opposite ruling.
I said that in the future, we should point this out to readers instead of arguing both sides over and over again. This is because, once again, both sides have some sort of traction and it is not possible to come to a consensus. If it was possible, it would have happened in 18 pages. Neither side will ever back down because neither side is completely wrong, as this rule can be interpreted in one way or the other.
But feth it, because?... I don't understand what you hope to accompllish by keep getting on this merry go round.
I said that if you live in NA, it is a good idea to just go into things with the standard that it doesn't work and adjust accordingly from there. Since the ITC is the biggest NA tournament organization. The opposite goes for EU.
In your basement games, play however you want. That is all.
You are not right. You are not wrong. Deal with it. Just as much as they are not right. And they are not wrong.
Rasko wrote: Hahaha. Where have I ever said that relying on the roll is the right way to go?
I never said you did. I was simply pointing out that in the rulebook, these are handled by a roll off, but that the roll off isn't helpful here.
Rasko wrote: I have never said that every single minute tournament in NA uses ITC rules or that every single minute tournament in EU uses ETC rules.
I don't understand where you are getting these delusional ideas...
It is called "covering the bases" and "explaining my answer". If someone goes up to a tournament expecting ETC rules, and finds out mid-way through the game that it is ITC rules, that is their problem. No different than in the scenario you just covered.
Rasko wrote: I simply stated that we should point out to future readers that ITC ruled for and ETC ruled against, since neither side can come to a proper consensus.
I said there are valid points to both sides in this argument. It is an ambiguous rule, which is further acknowledged by the fact that two of the biggest tournament organizations made opposite ruling.
And they may change the ruling at some future point. Coming from such diverse environs and NOT the forum for those tournament circuits, extolling any TC ruling can be rather pointless. What do the Australians use, for example? It is not any different than saying, "At my LGS we do this".
Rasko wrote: You are not right. You are not wrong. Deal with it. Just as much as they are not right. And they are not wrong.
I am right, though. They are wrong. Especially Blacktoof and col_impact. One works from either some strange rulebook he will not quote from and the other lies and makes up cases, takes your arguments, turns them around, and try to use them against you.
Charistoph wrote: [sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:
And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...
Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.
Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.
Surely you realise that any future readers of thread will have given up by around page 4
I gave both sides an elegant way to end the argument without having to admit defeat. But you just had to start this never-ending train again.
I'm beginning to think you have some kind of complex.
I am right, though. They are wrong. Especially Blacktoof and col_impact. One works from either some strange rulebook he will not quote from and the other lies and makes up cases, takes your arguments, turns them around, and try to use them against you.
It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.
I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument, now would we?
So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument and keep your baseless accusations politely to yourself and do your part to help maintain a standard of polite discourse in YMDC.
I have merely pointed out that as of yet you have wholly failed to provide for On Target something that satisfies the requisites laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and that you cannot ignore plainly stated rules (unless you want to go the route of a house rule).
The IC Special Rules rule indicates quite clearly that the special rules of the IC do not extend to the joined unit and the special rules of the unit do not extend to the joined IC.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
So the special rules of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule >" or some such equivalent) do not automatically extend their benefit to the attached ICs.
In order for a special rule of the unit to extend to the IC it must meet the requirement of having something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"
Stubborn includes a clause that logically extends the special rule to attached models (which would include the IC).
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This clause is not some random clause but a clause that ALL of the special rules that extend to attached ICs include. In fact, it is by virtue of this clause that the effects of the special rule of the unit are extended to the IC. Here is a listing of the special rules of the unit that follow Stubborn's easily identifiable pattern (ie. specifically including the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or an exact logical synonym).
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
The clause is not some random verbiage. It is exactly what logically allows the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC.
The only special rules of the unit that break from the Stubborn pattern (of having a clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") are these:
Spoiler:
Fleet
Jink
Deep Strike
Swarms
Those rules are all special rules of the unit (ie, "a unit . . . <special rule>") but they include different specific clauses that regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit with the attached IC in a different way).
Fleet, Deep Strike, and Swarms require both IC and joined unit to have the actual special rule or none can benefit from its effects while Jink allows the extent of the special rule of the unit to be determined on an explicit model by model basis.
As we have already gone over, On Target includes no such clause. On Target includes nothing "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special)" that extends the special rule of the unit to the attached IC.
Therefore, the IC Special Rules rule is still in effect and On Target does not extend the benefit of its special rule of the unit to the attached IC.
col_impact wrote: It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.
Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.
col_impact wrote: I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?
So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.
Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.
col_impact wrote: I have merely pointed out that as of yet you have wholly failed to provide for On Target something that satisfies the requisites laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and that you cannot ignore plainly stated rules (unless you want to go the route of a house rule).
But I have, that is the odd part, is your memory so poor?
Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".
And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.
This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.
col_impact wrote: It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.
Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.
col_impact wrote: I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?
So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.
Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.
I would like to politely point out that making baseless accusations or personal attacks has no place in YMDC. I politely suggest you stick to proving your argument rather than stooping to such tactics. If you want you can PM me with your accusations/attacks and maybe we can get to the bottom of your personal problems with me. But YMDC is not the place for personal attacks or baseless accusations.
Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn. By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.
Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"
The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")
On Target has no such specific regulatory clauses whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
It's fine if you want to hand-wave away that requirement via house rule, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
col_impact wrote: It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.
Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.
col_impact wrote: I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?
So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.
Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.
I would like to politely point out that making such baseless accusations has no place in YMDC. I politely suggest you stick to proving your argument rather than stooping to such tactics. If you want you can PM me with your accusations.
Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn. By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.
Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"
The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")
On Target has no such specific regulatory clauses whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
It's fine if you want to hand-wave away that requirement via house rule, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
Must you create a potentially illegal situation in the game? We all know the IC rules are sloppy ("for all rules purposes" / exceptions apply).
I don't try to shoot other weapons first before firing an ordnance weapon. You don't have to e.g. attach a destroyer lord to a unit of deathmarks and try to benefit from an unclear situation.
Why not follow the more conservative point of view here? I do not attach IC's to a Skyhammer formation for above reason.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.
Must you create a potentially illegal situation in the game? We all know the IC rules are sloppy ("for all rules purposes" / exceptions apply).
I don't try to shoot other weapons first before firing an ordnance weapon. You don't have to e.g. attach a destroyer lord to a unit of deathmarks and try to benefit from an unclear situation.
Why not follow the more conservative point of view here? I do not attach IC's to a Skyhammer formation for above reason.
It's not illegal for you to attach ICs to a Skyhammer formation. This is more an issue of sorting out what happens when someone does.
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that the special rules do not extend their effect unless something is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the effect to be extended.
So the burden is entirely on the player who is trying to have the IC benefit from the Skyhammer formation rules to point definitively to something "specified in the [Skyhammer formation rules themselves] (as in Stubborn)" that enables them to extend the Skyhammer rule to the attached IC.
Ok I give up. I tried to stay neutral but feth it, I'm annoyed.
Charistoph wrote: Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".
The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?
Harkequin loves to try and contest this with
harkequin wrote: Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.
wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.
Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
Charistoph wrote: And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.
Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.
Charistoph wrote: This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.
More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.
Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A
On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this
Just go through this thread . I have tried to be polite, but you just kept making the same false claim even while I explained to you the difference (simply explaining the difference between what was said and what you claimed was said) you refused to even consider that your interpretation of what was written by him could be different from your claim of what he said.
That you are accused of being a liar in this thread is simply your own fault for making up and sticking to claims that were clearly false,as could be seen by simply reading your "opponents" text and comparing it with what you claimed they said.
Calling people liars is simply inflammatory and not allowed on YMDC. If someone has my argument wrong, I simply correct them. We are all responsible for maintaining a polite forum.
Also, at this point it's off-topic. Do you have something that you would like to contribute to the topic of the thread?
Feel free to PM me if you want to continue discussing YMDC thread politeness decorum.
Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
You've not properly grasped my argument on Blind then. I've never claimed that Blind is not an Ongoing Effect, I'd like you to provide a quote of me actually saying otherwise if you want to keep up that claim - thanks.
There is no "ongoing effect special rule", but Blind is a Special Rule that creates an Ongoing Effect. The Blind rule itself does not transfer from a unit which has the Blind rule itself to an IC attached - it doesn't even transfer from one weapon on a model to another weapon.
So far we can all agree on this, right?
My point - and the reason for bringing up Blind - is that e.g. On Target work the same:
There is the "who uses this?" - a unit, a weapon or a model. A unit is always composed of all the models in it, including an IC. Here the exception for Special Rules and ICs applies - it is not being confered upon the IC.
The next important part is "when is it used?" - For Blind it is used after a successful attack, for On Target it is when the unit arrives from Deep Strike reserves.
The last important part of a special rule is its effect, divided into two thinks: Who is affected? What is happening to the affected?
For Blind, the unit targeted and hit is blinded.
For On Target, a VV unit from this formation gains the permission to charge on the turn they arrive.
This last part is an Ongoing Effect in my opinion, and it is in both cases.
--
We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Yet it isn't in the example provided. "When a unit that contains at least one model" is a condition for when this rule can be used. It does not even remotely say when or if this rule is transfered from one model / unit to another model (IC).
Being included in "the unit" is enough to include the IC when it comes to the question of "who is affected?". None of the special rules actually confer/transfer the rule itself to another model, and quite honestly I'd say it's simply a case of bad rules writing.
Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, they get Counter-Attack.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A
What exactly is your point? Counter-Attack, according to the "but Stubborns way of adressing a unit must be present" train of thought, confers to the unit and "specifically names ICs" as affected, or did I misinterpret that? To confer means to transfer, to give the rule. According to that logic, the entire unit - which includes all the models - now has Counter-Attack. Then the rule goes on to say "every model with the rule gets +1 Attacks", which is the effect. So since all the models in the unit, specifically including the IC, have the Special Rule, all models profit and gain the +1 Attack.
I'd say it's obvious this isn't how the Counter Attack rule is supposed to work, so that leads us back to the cause of what went wrong: Saying that "a unit containing at least one model" means that ICs gain the Special Rule thanks to the "IC & SR" section.
So the part where models gain +1 Attacks is the effect while the owner of the Special rule is the entire unit, and the Special Rule itself is not confered as per the "IC & SR" section, but the effect still applies to the whole unit, and only if the IC is one of the models which already had Counter-Attack it will be affected as per the "models with the rule gain +1A." condition of the effect.
Side-note: I like Counter-Attack, it seems to be pretty well-written and precise in what it is supposed to do.
Either that, or you're using a different and - at least to me - unknown meaning of "to confer something to someone", where it does not mean that you give the "something" to "someone". Could you please provide me with that other interpretation and a source for it, if that is the case? A source outside of "from the way I read this text, contextually it must mean <this or that>" - e.g. a dictionary.
If nothing else, the Datasheet says the Unit may charge, the BRB says it may not. Datasheet is the more advanced rule and thus takes precedence, allowing the unit to charge on the same turn they deep struck, assuming the only thing stopping them from charging is that the IC arrived from DS reserves.
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-
It does not say the unit can do anything.
You are the anti RAW side, you just don't show it by failing to post any rules quotes to support your argument and insted claim the rule has wording that in reality does not exist in the rules.
As RAW means rules as written, and you purposefully choose to not use the rules as written but rather argue something that is not written I would say you are the anti RAW side, and additionaly violating the tenants of the forums which ask you to use the rules quotes to back up your stance as well as not insult other posters
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
Does it actually say Deep Strike Reserve or just Deep Strike in the book?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-
It does not say the unit can do anything.
Then the Formation doesn't carry any units at all.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.
At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".
The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?
You never did define what YOU mean by "Unit Special Rule". Is it as I referenced earlier with col_impact meaning that it is a rule that only appears on a unit's datasheet, is it a rule that affects a unit, or is it what you think USR means? I'm assuming the second, but I just want to be clear.
Dok's Tools are carried by an Independent Character and only an Independent Character. An IC's unit identity is not recognized when joined another unit, so it just being "this unit may have FNP" means he would lose it as soon as he joined another unit. I have explained this before. Now turn it around for a rule that is carried by a non-IC unit and only a non-IC unit. I challenged you to consider this concept before. You did not answer it at all.
Counter-Attack includes the IC in the response, but he does not get the bonus unless he has the rule itself.
I put an emphasis on the second condition because it is just as important as the first clause in the Stubborn rule, but everyone who insists on "at least one model" completely ignores it. Do you understand now? The phrase "at least one model" is tied with "this special rule". In order for it to "confer" from unit to IC and that this phrase is the part including the IC, the IC would have to be the one possessing it. The "at least one model with this special rule" IS important, as I have explained before. This allows an IC to grant the benefit to the unit as well as the unit granting the benefit to the IC. A "two-way" rule as I have referenced it.
So, yes, the language of the required clauses is important in understanding it. But even when the spirit of this clause that they love is still in force, they will not accept it unless it carries the exact statement.
Rasko wrote:Harkequin loves to try and contest this with
harkequin wrote: Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.
wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.
I already gave the answer. ICs are considered to be part of the units they are joined to when they are affected by a rule.
Even the clause "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is satisfied since it requires a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" will always be "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" as long as it exists. Can you identify a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" which is not "a unit with at least one model with this special rule"? I can think of only one instance where this is even possible, and that requires that two ICs be joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad while every Veteran and the Sergeant were removed as a casualty. In their minds they are separating out the Vanguard Veteran Squad and IC as being two separate units (or in Blacktoof's case not recognizing 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' as a unit at all).
This is what I meant when I stated that they are stuck on this exact phrase being present. Even when it is fulfilled without writing it precisely, they still require the exact words and ignore anything else the rule states.
Rasko wrote:Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
Incorrect. You are conflating Blacktoof's argument now. You are confusing what we are stating. Special Rules provide an effect. Sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is not. An IC which just left a Slow and Purposeful unit by movement would be Snap Firing unless they, too, also had Relentless or had Slow and Purposeful. And IC that joins a SnP unit by movement will be affected by it. The check for SNP is when they shoot. On Target's check is when it arrives from Deep Strike and then overrides the Deep Strike Restriction.
Now, there could be an argument for the first part of On Target, as it is not technically conditional, i.e. it doesn't say "When a unit arrives from Deep Strike" and instead just gives blanket permission to the unit. But that is not what you and others have actually been arguing at all.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.
Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.
Already answered above. Yes, it does.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.
More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.
Quite correct.
Rasko wrote:Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll
And the IC is part of it, part of the check, part of the pass. Where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A
And where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
Stuck on the specific words, like you say you are not. I already demonstrated how they did this, review above.
Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.
No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.
I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
Does it actually say Deep Strike Reserve or just Deep Strike in the book?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-
It does not say the unit can do anything.
Then the Formation doesn't carry any units at all.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.
At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".
The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?
You never did define what YOU mean by "Unit Special Rule". Is it as I referenced earlier with col_impact meaning that it is a rule that only appears on a unit's datasheet, is it a rule that affects a unit, or is it what you think USR means? I'm assuming the second, but I just want to be clear.
Dok's Tools are carried by an Independent Character and only an Independent Character. An IC's unit identity is not recognized when joined another unit, so it just being "this unit may have FNP" means he would lose it as soon as he joined another unit. I have explained this before. Now turn it around for a rule that is carried by a non-IC unit and only a non-IC unit. I challenged you to consider this concept before. You did not answer it at all.
Counter-Attack includes the IC in the response, but he does not get the bonus unless he has the rule itself.
I put an emphasis on the second condition because it is just as important as the first clause in the Stubborn rule, but everyone who insists on "at least one model" completely ignores it. Do you understand now? The phrase "at least one model" is tied with "this special rule". In order for it to "confer" from unit to IC and that this phrase is the part including the IC, the IC would have to be the one possessing it. The "at least one model with this special rule" IS important, as I have explained before. This allows an IC to grant the benefit to the unit as well as the unit granting the benefit to the IC. A "two-way" rule as I have referenced it.
So, yes, the language of the required clauses is important in understanding it. But even when the spirit of this clause that they love is still in force, they will not accept it unless it carries the exact statement.
Rasko wrote:Harkequin loves to try and contest this with
harkequin wrote: Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.
wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.
I already gave the answer. ICs are considered to be part of the units they are joined to when they are affected by a rule.
Even the clause "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is satisfied since it requires a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" will always be "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" as long as it exists. Can you identify a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" which is not "a unit with at least one model with this special rule"? I can think of only one instance where this is even possible, and that requires that two ICs be joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad while every Veteran and the Sergeant were removed as a casualty. In their minds they are separating out the Vanguard Veteran Squad and IC as being two separate units (or in Blacktoof's case not recognizing 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' as a unit at all).
This is what I meant when I stated that they are stuck on this exact phrase being present. Even when it is fulfilled without writing it precisely, they still require the exact words and ignore anything else the rule states.
Rasko wrote:Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
Incorrect. You are conflating Blacktoof's argument now. You are confusing what we are stating. Special Rules provide an effect. Sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is not. An IC which just left a Slow and Purposeful unit by movement would be Snap Firing unless they, too, also had Relentless or had Slow and Purposeful. And IC that joins a SnP unit by movement will be affected by it. The check for SNP is when they shoot. On Target's check is when it arrives from Deep Strike and then overrides the Deep Strike Restriction.
Now, there could be an argument for the first part of On Target, as it is not technically conditional, i.e. it doesn't say "When a unit arrives from Deep Strike" and instead just gives blanket permission to the unit. But that is not what you and others have actually been arguing at all.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.
Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.
Already answered above. Yes, it does.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.
More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.
Quite correct.
Rasko wrote:Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll
And the IC is part of it, part of the check, part of the pass. Where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A
And where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
Stuck on the specific words, like you say you are not. I already demonstrated how they did this, review above.
Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.
No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.
I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.
This response again highlights that you do not understand how the rules for units with attached ICs work in regards to special rules.
Yes people are stuck on a version of this phrase being required because the rules as written plainly state it is required to be specified for the rule to affect the IC.
Not all rules possessed by an unit purchased from a datasheet are rules that affect an unit if a model in the unit has it. Example= fleet.
If you purchase an unit from a datasheet hormagaunts, that has fleet and attach an IC to the unit the IC does not gain fleet. The hormagaunts have fleet, but the rule does not give permission for the IC to use fleet or benefit in any way.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
Does it actually say Deep Strike Reserve or just Deep Strike in the book?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-
It does not say the unit can do anything.
Then the Formation doesn't carry any units at all.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.
At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".
The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?
You never did define what YOU mean by "Unit Special Rule". Is it as I referenced earlier with col_impact meaning that it is a rule that only appears on a unit's datasheet, is it a rule that affects a unit, or is it what you think USR means? I'm assuming the second, but I just want to be clear.
Dok's Tools are carried by an Independent Character and only an Independent Character. An IC's unit identity is not recognized when joined another unit, so it just being "this unit may have FNP" means he would lose it as soon as he joined another unit. I have explained this before. Now turn it around for a rule that is carried by a non-IC unit and only a non-IC unit. I challenged you to consider this concept before. You did not answer it at all.
Counter-Attack includes the IC in the response, but he does not get the bonus unless he has the rule itself.
I put an emphasis on the second condition because it is just as important as the first clause in the Stubborn rule, but everyone who insists on "at least one model" completely ignores it. Do you understand now? The phrase "at least one model" is tied with "this special rule". In order for it to "confer" from unit to IC and that this phrase is the part including the IC, the IC would have to be the one possessing it. The "at least one model with this special rule" IS important, as I have explained before. This allows an IC to grant the benefit to the unit as well as the unit granting the benefit to the IC. A "two-way" rule as I have referenced it.
So, yes, the language of the required clauses is important in understanding it. But even when the spirit of this clause that they love is still in force, they will not accept it unless it carries the exact statement.
Rasko wrote:Harkequin loves to try and contest this with
harkequin wrote: Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge
There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.
wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.
I already gave the answer. ICs are considered to be part of the units they are joined to when they are affected by a rule.
Even the clause "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is satisfied since it requires a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" will always be "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" as long as it exists. Can you identify a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" which is not "a unit with at least one model with this special rule"? I can think of only one instance where this is even possible, and that requires that two ICs be joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad while every Veteran and the Sergeant were removed as a casualty. In their minds they are separating out the Vanguard Veteran Squad and IC as being two separate units (or in Blacktoof's case not recognizing 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' as a unit at all).
This is what I meant when I stated that they are stuck on this exact phrase being present. Even when it is fulfilled without writing it precisely, they still require the exact words and ignore anything else the rule states.
Rasko wrote:Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
Incorrect. You are conflating Blacktoof's argument now. You are confusing what we are stating. Special Rules provide an effect. Sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is not. An IC which just left a Slow and Purposeful unit by movement would be Snap Firing unless they, too, also had Relentless or had Slow and Purposeful. And IC that joins a SnP unit by movement will be affected by it. The check for SNP is when they shoot. On Target's check is when it arrives from Deep Strike and then overrides the Deep Strike Restriction.
Now, there could be an argument for the first part of On Target, as it is not technically conditional, i.e. it doesn't say "When a unit arrives from Deep Strike" and instead just gives blanket permission to the unit. But that is not what you and others have actually been arguing at all.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.
Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit." We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.
Already answered above. Yes, it does.
Rasko wrote:
Charistoph wrote: This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.
More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.
Quite correct.
Rasko wrote:Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll
And the IC is part of it, part of the check, part of the pass. Where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A
And where was I incorrect?
Rasko wrote:On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
Stuck on the specific words, like you say you are not. I already demonstrated how they did this, review above.
Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.
No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.
I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.
This response again highlights that you do not understand how the rules for units with attached ICs work in regards to special rules.
Yes people are stuck on a version of this phrase being required because the rules as written plainly state it is required to be specified for the rule to affect the IC.
Not all rules possessed by an unit purchased from a datasheet are rules that affect an unit if a model in the unit has it. Example= fleet.
If you purchase an unit from a datasheet hormagaunts, that has fleet and attach an IC to the unit the IC does not gain fleet. The hormagaunts have fleet, but the rule does not give permission for the IC to use fleet or benefit in any way.
Seriously? A super long wall of qouting just to add some lines below that?!
@All we have spoilers... whats the point of making a super quote en block just to add some lines below? I gett it when someone breaks a post up into several quotings to aderess parts of it in detail.. but just a wall? what abpout to add several thousand lines of *** just to make you sroll down even further.
There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.
wrote:
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct. Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct. >>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<< "Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.
This is where you are missstepping. The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.
I do not understand how you miss this. The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target" The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.
Blind works the same way, The weapon has a special rule called "blind" The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.
In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.
You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.
Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.
EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence. The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.
So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.
You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?
He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.
At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.
Name-calling and making baseless accusations break YMDC's rules. Stick to arguing your case. If you have a personal problem with me you can PM or take the matter to a Mod.
Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.
No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.
I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.
You have been flat out ignoring the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")
Stubborn includes a clause that logically extends the special rule to attached models (which would include the IC).
"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This clause is not some random clause but a clause that ALL of the special rules that extend to attached ICs include. In fact, it is by virtue of this clause that the effects of the special rule of the unit are extended to the IC.
The clause is not some random verbiage. It is exactly what logically allows the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The clause logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
The clause is a part of all the special rules of the unit in the BRB that extend their effect to the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
On Target has no such specific regulatory clause whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn.
Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"
By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.
On Target has no such specific regulatory clause whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.
You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
It's fine if you want to just house rule the rule away, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.
This is where you are missstepping.
The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.
I do not understand how you miss this.
The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target"
The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.
Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.
In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.
You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.
Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.
EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence.
The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.
So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.
The BRB's meaning of confer is "to extend the effect of the rule" and not "grant/bestow a rule".
You are not permitted to use a dictionary to go against the BRB usage of a word.
You are also not permitted to use a dictionary in rules discussions per YMDC rules.
Further, if you actually use the dictionary meaning of "confer" as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks.
If an IC grants/bestows a rule to a unit, the unit will still have that rule when the IC leaves. That's what grant/bestow means - the rule has been explicitly given and now a rule must explicitly remove it.
So since we are interested in forming RAW arguments then we need to stick to the usage of "confer" in the BRB.
Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
You've not properly grasped my argument on Blind then. I've never claimed that Blind is not an Ongoing Effect, I'd like you to provide a quote of me actually saying otherwise if you want to keep up that claim - thanks.
There is no "ongoing effect special rule", but Blind is a Special Rule that creates an Ongoing Effect. The Blind rule itself does not transfer from a unit which has the Blind rule itself to an IC attached - it doesn't even transfer from one weapon on a model to another weapon.
So far we can all agree on this, right?
My point - and the reason for bringing up Blind - is that e.g. On Target work the same:
There is the "who uses this?" - a unit, a weapon or a model. A unit is always composed of all the models in it, including an IC. Here the exception for Special Rules and ICs applies - it is not being confered upon the IC.
The next important part is "when is it used?" - For Blind it is used after a successful attack, for On Target it is when the unit arrives from Deep Strike reserves.
The last important part of a special rule is its effect, divided into two thinks: Who is affected? What is happening to the affected?
For Blind, the unit targeted and hit is blinded.
For On Target, a VV unit from this formation gains the permission to charge on the turn they arrive.
This last part is an Ongoing Effect in my opinion, and it is in both cases.
Ok lets break this down precisely and I'll show you that you are wrong, again.
Blind: "Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule must take an Initiative test at the end of the current phase. If the test is passed, all is well – a shouted warning has caused the warriors to avert their gaze. If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn. Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test. Any model that does not have an Initiative characteristic (for example, non-Walker vehicles, buildings etc.) is unaffected by this special rule."
>Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule must take an Initiative test at the end of the current phase.
Up to this step in the Special Rule, the IC IS NOT INCLUDED. It is a special rule and like all special rules, it must have a specification or it does not effect the IC. There is no specification so far, the IC is not included.
>If the test is passed, all is well – a shouted warning has caused the warriors to avert their gaze.
>If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn.
Now, the test has failed. We look at the rule and look for a specification to see if we include the IC. Once again, why do we do this?
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>"...all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1". We find a clause that includes the IC for the effect.
>IC and the unit is effected with this ongoing effect.
EVEN IF you take the stance that "... On Target" is a an ONGOING EFFECT, it must have a clause to include IC's because it is still a special rule.
Your favorite, Blind, ALSO INCLUDES A CLAUSE FOR THE EFFECT OF THE SPECIAL RULE.
Please look at what I wrote up there... Now, I ask you to read it again. How does Blind change anything?
Since you chose to ignore this part of my previous message, I will go through it for you.
On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, therefore it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via a special rule. As you pointed out earlier, being an effect or not is meaningless because it is still a special rule. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
You bringing up Blind does not CHANGE A THING. Blind follows the rules, like anything else.
For Blind, when the test is failed, we get an effect of "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1"
Blind ALSO FOLLOWS THE PRECEDENT OF NEEDING A CLAUSE TO EFFECT THE IC.
For '... On Target', if the unit wants to charge via a Special Rule, we look at the rule to see if there is a clause (THAT BLIND FOLLOWS) that allows us to include the IC.
>"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge..."
WHERE IS THE CLAUSE THAT EVERY UNIT SPECIAL RULE FOLLOWS?????????? You keep saying Blind, LIKE IT CHANGES ANYTHING. BLIND FOLLOWS THE RULES AS WELL.
nekooni wrote: Being included in "the unit" is enough to include the IC when it comes to the question of "who is affected?". None of the special rules actually confer/transfer the rule itself to another model, and quite honestly I'd say it's simply a case of bad rules writing.
Now we go back to what I was saying about the precedent set in every single unit special rule in every single book and every single codex.
Unit Special Rules have a clause of some sort that specifically allow us to include any attached IC's.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
And if you look at any special rule in the game, there is a specified clause for when to include the IC. This is a precedent set and followed by EVERY SPECIAL RULE IN THE GAME. There is no specified clause that includes IC's in "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn..."
Your side's usual answer to this is to give "... On Target" special snowflake treatment and go through a mental hoop to say
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Once again, for the millionth time, the IC is part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad. No one disputes that!!!! But since this is a special rule and there is an IC in the unit, it must pass a specification, like every single other damn special rule, for when to include IC's! You cannot randomly choose to skip this step.
Why are you going through that mental hoop when that is literally not what it says in the damn rule???
Again, please look at what I wrote up there... Please acknowledge that I have addressed every single thing you wrote and did not skip anything. I have logically defended every single facet of this discussion. Address my points.
nekooni wrote: What exactly is your point? Counter-Attack, according to the "but Stubborns way of adressing a unit must be present" train of thought, confers to the unit and "specifically names ICs" as affected, or did I misinterpret that? To confer means to transfer, to give the rule. According to that logic, the entire unit - which includes all the models - now has Counter-Attack. Then the rule goes on to say "every model with the rule gets +1 Attacks", which is the effect. So since all the models in the unit, specifically including the IC, have the Special Rule, all models profit and gain the +1 Attack.
I'd say it's obvious this isn't how the Counter Attack rule is supposed to work, so that leads us back to the cause of what went wrong: Saying that "a unit containing at least one model" means that ICs gain the Special Rule thanks to the "IC & SR" section.
So the part where models gain +1 Attacks is the effect while the owner of the Special rule is the entire unit, and the Special Rule itself is not confered as per the "IC & SR" section, but the effect still applies to the whole unit, and only if the IC is one of the models which already had Counter-Attack it will be affected as per the "models with the rule gain +1A." condition of the effect.
Side-note: I like Counter-Attack, it seems to be pretty well-written and precise in what it is supposed to do.
Either that, or you're using a different and - at least to me - unknown meaning of "to confer something to someone", where it does not mean that you give the "something" to "someone". Could you please provide me with that other interpretation and a source for it, if that is the case? A source outside of "from the way I read this text, contextually it must mean <this or that>" - e.g. a dictionary.
*edit: fixed a typo*
Sigh. What is my point? I will go through this part as well, in a step-by-step order.
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
>"If a unit...": This special rule, so far, does not include the IC in any way.
>"If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...": The IC is now included in the special rule because it now has a clause to include IC's.
>"... and that unit is charged": The unit is charged.
>"... every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.": The special rule once again, gives us a clause to include IC's in the effect of this special rule.
This is my point. I don't know why you think Counter-Attack is the only special rule that is written well. EVERY SINGLE SPECIAL RULE IS WRITTEN IN THIS WAY.
Once again, why is "... On Target" getting special treatment and not needing a clause? The ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GO THROUGH A MENTAL HOOP OF
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Unfortunately, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE RULE.
I believe I have broken this down in such a way that anyone can follow. Please do not try to misdirect the discussion and address my points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harkequin wrote: This is where you are missstepping.
The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.
I do not understand how you miss this.
The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target"
The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.
Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.
In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.
You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.
Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.
EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence.
The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.
So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.
Ps.Sorry you got dragged back in.
Please, please, please. Read Blind. It follows the rules like everything else. I covered it when I responded to Nekooni. Read the response but I'll include a shortened version of it here.
null wrote:"Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1."
That is not what it says in the rule. Not even close!!!! If you are going by memory, please re-read Blind!
Blind: "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
I am NOT being selective at all. How does Blind not follow the rules of needing a clause for the IC!!!??
It is actually the opposite! You are being selective for ".. On Target" not needing a clause! EVERY OTHER SPECIAL RULE HAS A CLAUSE FOR IC'S (INCLUDING BLIND!!!!).
I am trying to decide whether I should even bother responding to Charistoph. Unlike Harkequin and Nekooni, who have clear and comprehensible responses, Charistoph just likes to play ring-around-the-rosie and play words games.
blaktoof wrote:This response again highlights that you do not understand how the rules for units with attached ICs work in regards to special rules.
Yes people are stuck on a version of this phrase being required because the rules as written plainly state it is required to be specified for the rule to affect the IC.
No, it isn't. Not once is a specific phrase ever stated to be the requirement. Quote the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it provides the exact phrase, not a reference, the exact phrase. Quote the Stubborn rule and highlight where it states "independent characters are included". Even more insane is requiring a specific phrase that never even mentions the specifics required! I will go in to this later.
blaktoof wrote:Not all rules possessed by an unit purchased from a datasheet are rules that affect an unit if a model in the unit has it. Example= fleet.
If you purchase an unit from a datasheet hormagaunts, that has fleet and attach an IC to the unit the IC does not gain fleet. The hormagaunts have fleet, but the rule does not give permission for the IC to use fleet or benefit in any way.
Point of fact: We never once said they did. And we have said that repeatedly. We are saying the only thing that let's a unit provide Stubborn's affect to a model without Stubborn is not the "with at least one model with this special rule", but the "a unit" portion. The IC is considered for every facet and restriction of a rule as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and this does include preventing that Hormagaunt unit from using Fleet if a Tyranid Prime is in it.
Rasko wrote:I am trying to decide whether I should even bother responding to Charistoph. Unlike Harkequin and Nekooni, who have clear and comprehensible responses, Charistoph just likes to play ring-around-the-rosie and play words games.
Define what you mean by this. Or is this because I ask questions you cannot nor will not answer?
I will try to explain again why this phrase cannot be the expectation you think it is:
First, the sentence which tells us to reference Stubborn talks about conferring the rules from the units to the IC, AND the IC to the unit. This is important to remember. It is also important to remember than when an IC joins a unit, it does not operate as its own unit any more and cannot be acted upon as a unit separately from the unit is has joined.
The clause "contains at least one model with this special rule" is not referencing a model without the special rule. Therefore, it cannot be including an IC into a unit's special rule effect because it is referencing a model with this special rule, not without. So the passage of moving an effect from the unit on to a joined IC without the rule cannot be specifically found in this phrase. The only place to find this model without the rule would be in the "a unit" portion of this phrase. Why is the IC able to be referenced there? From another line which includes the IC as part of the unit for rules purposes. A unit which already possesses this rule will already have "at least one model with this special rule", so it doesn't need the IC to provide it. More importantly, unlike Fleet and Deep Strike, it also does not require all models to have it for the unit to benefit. And unlike Counter-Attack and the second part of Move Through Cover, it does not require actual possession of the rule for the effect to occur on the model.
HOWEVER, the phrase "contains at least one model with this special rule" is important when going the other way. When taking a Dark Angel Company Master (IC) with Grim Resolve (which grants Stubborn) and putting him in to a Ultramarine Tactical Squad (unit without Stubborn), this Company Master model is now the "at least one model with this special rule".
If Stubborn was just having the rule "A unit with this rule ignores negative leadership modifiers when taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests", would mean that the IC would gain this benefit if he joined this unit, but not would not be able to provide this benefit to the unit. The Tactical Squad would not benefit since it does not have the Special Rule as part of its Datasheet, only one model which is there temporarily and the rule is not granted to the rest of the unit. It is why Dok's Tools are different. It is always going to be an IC that joins other units. In order to benefit the rest of the unit, it cannot keep itself to being just "a unit with this rule".
That is why relying on this clause to allow a unit to give an IC a rule is ridiculous. You are reading it in the wrong direction. It would be like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly.
Blaktoof - you've been corrected on this often enough
Vanguard Veteran Swuad is the unit name. It is the name of the unit. When they reference VVS they reference the unit. By name.
Oh, thought I was on ignore after the last time you were proven wrong?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve
Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)
Lol. Because you say we are anti-RAW doesn't make us anti-RAW. Who is anti-RAW is what we are trying to figure out. That is not how you win an argument.
I could just say that you are anti-RAW instead. How does that further our discussion or prove that you are anti-RAW in any meaningful way?
You are barely paying attention.
"The unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC". Who disputes this? No one.
However, that does not mean "the unit may charge". You always skip a billion steps in this process.
On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule. Whether '... On Target' is a Unit Special Rule or an effect from Ongoing Effect Special Rule is not important. They are both still special rules. >Because '... On Target' is a special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via a special rule or an effect from a special rule. Once again, being an effect or not is meaningless because it is still a special rule. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.
You guys love to say that the Blind 'effect' portion proves your point in how effects don't need clauses. If you read Blind, you will notice that there is a clause for the effect in
Blind: "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
nosferatu1001 wrote: Vanguard Veteran Swuad is the unit name. It is the name of the unit. When they reference VVS they reference the unit. By name.
Oh, thought I was on ignore after the last time you were proven wrong?
Which brings us to this. They do reference Vet Squad by name. The IC is part of the Vet Squad. However, whenever you have a special rule and a unit with an IC (whether it is an effect or not), you go through a check. You cannot skip this check because you randomly feel like it.
"... On Target" is a special rule. Once again, whether it is an effect or not is pointless because it is still a special rule. For argument's sake lets say it is an effect.
You guys love to reference Blind. Looking at Blind shows us that the effect portion of Blind has a clause that includes IC's in its effect via
"...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
Where is the clause that includes IC's in the '... On Target' 'effect'?
It doesn't matter what the specific clause is, the important thing is that it needs a clause. For the trillionth time, why does the '... On Target' effect get to pass without having a clause? When every single other special rule in the game has a clause for when to include IC's, effects included?
Yes , there is a clause. The unit. The unit, without ecpxception, may charge. Is the IC a normal me,her of the unit, for the clause "the unit"?
Yes
That quote was at Blaktoof , who has this bizarre idea that VVS isn't the unit. Like, every time this comes up, despite being proven wrong every time, they restate as if it has any truth to it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes , there is a clause. The unit. The unit, without ecpxception, may charge. Is the IC a normal me,her of the unit, for the clause "the unit"?
Yes
That quote was at Blaktoof , who has this bizarre idea that VVS isn't the unit. Like, every time this comes up, despite being proven wrong every time, they restate as if it has any truth to it.
FINALLY, we are getting somehwere. So I'm going to assume from here on, that you agree with me until the check part then? The other people can't (or won't) even agree that it is the correct sequence of events up to that point. They either skip steps or ignore them all-together.
This next part had already been discussed but it's alright. Like I said, this thread is a merry-go-round. And we love merry-go-rounds. And so we come back to this, from a couple pages back.
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
There is a fundemental difference between ALL the other special rules and "... On Target". There is a specified clause that is represented in SOME WAY in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
So I was asking, like before, why is "... On Target" getting special treatment in this manner? Look at ALL THE OTHER special rules in every single book and tell me how you can say "... On Target" has a clause??
Once again, like I said before, the only way to do this is if you go through a mental hoop of
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Unfortunately, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!
It isn't getting special treatment. Skyhammer, et al, are all in on this thing.
The only thing that tells you to include an IC in stubborn, for example, is the IC rule that states they are a normal member of the unit. You MUST use this rule, otherwise stubborn would not stop an ICsld being reduced
Yet for some reason this rule suddenly isn't good enough once "only" the unit - which is at least as good as "one model" in the unit - is specified.
Anyway. This is 19 pages. You cannot convince me as nothing. You have said is new. Literally,,nothing. You've just used more caps to do it.
You do not address a single thing but that's ok. It isn't surprising to me after you resorted to saying "the anti-RAW side" to win an argument.
I dont' give a gak about convincing you one way or the other. You are going to think whatever the hell you want in the end anyway, whether it is right or wrong.
I am merely pointing out how you are being illogical.
Perhaps YMDC is the wrong place for you if you don't wish to discuss the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It isn't getting special treatment. Skyhammer, et al, are all in on this thing.
The only thing that tells you to include an IC in stubborn, for example, is the IC rule that states they are a normal member of the unit. You MUST use this rule, otherwise stubborn would not stop an ICsld being reduced
Yet for some reason this rule suddenly isn't good enough once "only" the unit - which is at least as good as "one model" in the unit - is specified.
Anyway. This is 19 pages. You cannot convince me as nothing. You have said is new. Literally,,nothing. You've just used more caps to do it.
The IC Special Rules rule requires you to definitively point to something that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubburn)" in order to allow the special rules of the unit to extend their benefit to joined ICs.
The IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that there is no rule sharing by default between the special rules of the unit and the special rules of the attached IC.
The burden is on you to definitively point to something in On Targt that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubburn)". If you cannot, then the benefit of On Target do not extend to the joined IC. You have not met the requirement.
We don't need to convince you. You need to convince us (by making a definitive case). The burden is on you.
The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.
Rasko- I actually addressed your argument entire. You then spent that entire post ignoring the tenets. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.
So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.
Rasko- I actually addressed your argument entire. You then spent that entire post ignoring the tenets. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.
Honestly at this point, I can't tell if you are trolling me or being wilfully obtuse.
The IC is normally a member of the squad for all rules purposes. Is it sounding familiar so far???
We have repeated this fact over and over again. It is not in contention.
The only time it is not the case is in special rules. Why?
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
How have I pretended the 'normal member' rule doesn't exist?
When it is you, in fact, who is pretending that
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules..."
doesn't exit...
Stubborn does not use the 'normal member' rule in any way, shape, or form. Where are you getting this from? More selective reading?
Read the ability again. Stubborn has a clause to include IC's. How did it require the use of the 'normal member' rule?
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...
so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then the unit ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows the unit ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...
so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.
The first one is from stubborn. how exactly is a IC here included? Only by treating him as a full member of the unit.
That this ork dok thing i guess. but again. the IC model is treated as a full member of the unit.
Then Blind.. what surprise. again. IC needs to be counted as a member of the unit.
On target does clearly state that the VVS is allowed to do something. The only difference her is that ther is no line like " while the VVS is alive.. " or any other line like this because its not needed. Only a Unit that is in deep strike reserve is allowed to deep strike. so no need for further conditions.
So in each of this cases we see that unless the IC/ its model is threaten as a part of his unit. That exactly is why stubborn and all these other rules allow that a IC benefits from a unit's special rule. or depending on exact wording a unit can benefit of special rules that a IC carries. So the upper part of the IC rules box that handles special rules and the lower part that tells us that a IC is a full member for all rule purposes actually work together. they are not a contradiction or a super exception. they work hand in hand.
When a Special rule targets a Unit as a whole. either by using the term "unit" or by using something like " all models in the unit" a IC is included. I have yet not seen any special rule that says " this includes a IC" ... with this i may be wrong but! the majority of Special rules that allow rule sharing / benefiting are worded in the pattern i mentioned some sentences above.
The second "problem " that is always mentioned is that only the units of a Formation can use it's special rules. comand bennefits and such. Even this rule is not violated.
The moment a IC an unit is belongs to this unit. if we count the units that are active on the table then we notice that this unit count is reduced by 1(one) the moment a IC joins a unit. so rule wise the IC unit stops to exist. Thus we don't have a unit that is not from the formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.
So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC.
So are we done here?
Yes, you're done here have been for 18'pages.
VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.
Rasko - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.
VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.
Rasko - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.
I love the way you argue your point. It is actually quite hilarious. _ghost_, Charistoph (even if he is incomprehensible a lot of the time), and the rest, even if I don't agree with them, we can at least attempt to have a logical discussion about the matter.
Here, let me show you how you do it.
nosferatu1001 - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.
Your anti-RAW side arguments have been proven wrong. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.
Do you see how uttery rediculous you sound? Well... You probably don't.
_ghost_ wrote: CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...
so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then the unit ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows the unit ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...
so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.
If everything here was true. You would be completely correct. Once again, I don't understand why you are selectively reading the rule when that is not what it says!
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...
so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then A unit that contains at least one model ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows A unit that contains at least one model ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...
_ghost_ wrote: so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.
The first one is from stubborn. how exactly is a IC here included? Only by treating him as a full member of the unit.
How exactly is the IC included in all your examples. A clause includes him in the form of "A unit that contains at least one model ..." or "all models in the unit...". Never, is it ever just "a unit" like you say it is.
_ghost_ wrote: That this ork dok thing i guess. but again. the IC model is treated as a full member of the unit.
A clause includes him in the form of "all models of the unit ...".
_ghost_ wrote: Then Blind.. what surprise. again. IC needs to be counted as a member of the unit.
You are right. What a surprise. again. The IC is counted as a member of the unit via a clause in the form of "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill..."
_ghost_ wrote: On target does clearly state that the VVS is allowed to do something. The only difference her is that ther is no line like " while the VVS is alive.. " or any other line like this because its not needed. Only a Unit that is in deep strike reserve is allowed to deep strike. so no need for further conditions.
Yes. On Target clearly does allow VVS to do something. However, On Target is a special rule. The IC does not need to have a special rule to benefit from the special rule. That is not what I'm saying. Whether the special rule is a unit special rule or an effect that targets the unt from a special rule is also meaningless. It is still a special rule (the Blind effect follows this precedent).
_ghost_ wrote: So in each of this cases we see that unless the IC/ its model is threaten as a part of his unit. That exactly is why stubborn and all these other rules allow that a IC benefits from a unit's special rule. or depending on exact wording a unit can benefit of special rules that a IC carries. So the upper part of the IC rules box that handles special rules and the lower part that tells us that a IC is a full member for all rule purposes actually work together. they are not a contradiction or a super exception. they work hand in hand.
You are right. The IC is a full member for all rule purposes. EXCEPT for special rules. "... On Target" did not pass the specification check. The only way to do that is going through a mental hoop.
_ghost_ wrote: When a Special rule targets a Unit as a whole. either by using the term "unit" or by using something like " all models in the unit" a IC is included. I have yet not seen any special rule that says " this includes a IC" ... with this i may be wrong but! the majority of Special rules that allow rule sharing / benefiting are worded in the pattern i mentioned some sentences above.
When the BRB wants to include the IC in a special rule, they make it EXCEEDINGly clear in the form of a clause. You guys are always so stuck on the fact that the rule doesn't say "this includes a IC". It doesnt say that. It is not contested. It doesn't have to, it just needs to be "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". No matter how much you guys like to pretend it does, "... On Target" does not have a specification.
_ghost_ wrote: The second "problem " that is always mentioned is that only the units of a Formation can use it's special rules. comand bennefits and such. Even this rule is not violated.
The moment a IC an unit is belongs to this unit. if we count the units that are active on the table then we notice that this unit count is reduced by 1(one) the moment a IC joins a unit. so rule wise the IC unit stops to exist. Thus we don't have a unit that is not from the formation.
There is no problem here. Where are you getting this idea from?
Once again, the IC is a member of the VVS for all rules purposes. I have never contested this. Please stop saying I did. When the IC joins the unit, you are completely correct, it is still a unit from the formation. I have never contested this. Please stop saying I did. However, just because the IC considered a part of the unit does not mean you can randomly skip -"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply joining a unit does not allow the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The default for an IC joined to a unit is as expressed below.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
[I have simply removed the "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" to logically prove that this is the default when an IC joins a unit]
VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.
So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.
Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.
Charistoph wrote: It would be like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly.
See what I mean by incomprehensible? I'm still trying to decide whether I should bother discussing with you.
Come on guys, I can't be the only one who read this and said "What the feth?"...
So, you get confused by one analogy and the rest of the post is confusing as a result? Is that what you are saying? Or that you just refuse to address it at all?
Here is the explanation of this analogy:
Bricks lying on the ground are heavy and do not float, much less fly.
Balloons are generally not heavy, tend to not be dense and can float quite easily, and if filled with something really light like Helium or Hydrogen, they fly off in to the air.
Tying a balloon to heavy brick that does not fly and is lying on the ground will generally keep the balloon down, and is a method in attempting to keep the balloon on the ground. This is the opposite of flying.
So, too, relying on a clause that says "contains at least one model with this special rule" to indicate that a unit passes a rule's benefit to a visiting IC when it says nothing about giving anything nor talking directly about the IC we are looking to pass the rule's benefit to, is "like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly."
You are relying on a something to do something which is doing the exact opposite of what of what it actually does.
The closest thing that can represent an IC without a special rule and can be found in, "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is "a unit", and only "a unit". It sure isn't in any other part of this statement. So, either an IC without this special rule is not included, or the simple clause of "a unit" without any other requirements is what is including the IC.
The IC Special Rule states that Stubborn does indeed include the IC with the unit in the benefit, so it is the latter clause of "a unit" is all that is required. This then requires other clauses to exclude the IC now that it has been included, such as Counter-Attack's "models with this rule" or Fleet's "with all models with this rule".
There is no other way that the language works in this case without a specific reference otherwise to translate it in to something beyond the regular english language. The IC Special Rules section does not carry this specific reference to translate this phrase in to a back and forth, it only references Stubborn which also does not provide this translation, either.
col_impact wrote:So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.
Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply joining a unit does not allow the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The default for an IC joined to a unit is as expressed below.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
[I have simply removed the "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" to logically prove that this is the default when an IC joins a unit]
VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.
So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.
Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.
So we are done here.
Yawn
No, not at all.
NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC
It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.
Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.
NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC
It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.
Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.
What's the "normal member" rule? Is it something specified in the On Target rule itself? If it isn't specified in the On Target rule itself it isn't going to override the IC Special Rules rule, per the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.
So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.
So your case has been disproven yet again.
Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.
So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.
So your case has been disproven yet again.
Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
Incorrect. Why not address the actual points I made instead of just the challenge?
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.
THEREFORE: How does it all work and relate to On Target/First the Fire Then the Blade?
1) Independent Characters join a unit and become part of that unit for all rules purposes. Whatever happens to that unit as a whole will affect the IC joined to that unit. Their own unit identity is not acknowledged while joined.
2) The Special Rules the unit possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the IC, nor are the Special Rules the IC possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the unit it is in.
3) Unless the rule specifies as in Stubborn. How does Stubborn specify?
4) Stubborn provides a list of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. Stubborn carries two conditions: contains at least one model with this special rule, taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
A unit with Stubborn joined by an IC without, will not be affected by 'its after me!'* if they lose Combat and make a Morale Check to leave Combat. Stubborn is "conferred" as far as it goes.
However, the same unit when hit by the Necron Gaze of Death (unit takes 3D6-LD Wounds) with the IC still affected by 'its after me!'*, may be relying on their Sergeant's Leadership rather than the IC's since they are not taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test and may be lower than the rest of the unit's.
If the same IC leaves the Stubborn unit and gets in another Combat, or if the unit is wiped out in the Phase before, it is not longer fulfilling the conditions of Stubborn so will be in danger of negative affects when taking Morale or Pinning Tests.
5) In order for On Target to work, a unit must have a specific name: 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'. The unit must be arriving from Deep Strike. This unit is granted permission to Charge. For another effect, it must be attempting to Deep Strike within range of 2 other units with a specific name: 'Scout Squad'.
On Target provides a lit of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. It is exactly the same as Stubborn in this respect.
The main differences are that On Target is never going to be carried by an IC and only by a unit, so including a specific clause that only considers a case where a Character gets the rule and the rest of the unit does not is pointless and beyond redundant. Also that people are used to Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful, but On Target is new and considered over-powered to begin with.
If you want to discuss On Target from not allowing the IC to Charge due to it being a permission and not an effect, I welcome it, as it is a different consideration than what we have largely been discussing, as I said earlier.
But Charging or not, if that IC is joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad from a Shadowstrike Kill Team, is the first model to be placed for a Deep Strike, and it is within range of two Scout Squads from the same Shadowstrike Kill Team, it does not scatter.
*‘It’s after me!’ is the Tyranid Unique Deathleaper special rule: Nominate an enemy character at the beginning of the game and roll a D3. Whilst Deathleaper is alive, that model’s Leadership is reduced by the result.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.
So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.
So your case has been disproven yet again.
Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
Incorrect. Why not address the actual points I made instead of just the challenge?
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.
THEREFORE: How does it all work and relate to On Target/First the Fire Then the Blade?
1) Independent Characters join a unit and become part of that unit for all rules purposes. Whatever happens to that unit as a whole will affect the IC joined to that unit. Their own unit identity is not acknowledged while joined.
2) The Special Rules the unit possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the IC, nor are the Special Rules the IC possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the unit it is in.
3) Unless the rule specifies as in Stubborn. How does Stubborn specify?
4) Stubborn provides a list of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. Stubborn carries two conditions: contains at least one model with this special rule, taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
A unit with Stubborn joined by an IC without, will not be affected by 'its after me!'* if they lose Combat and make a Morale Check to leave Combat. Stubborn is "conferred" as far as it goes.
However, the same unit when hit by the Necron Gaze of Death (unit takes 3D6-LD Wounds) with the IC still affected by 'its after me!'*, may be relying on their Sergeant's Leadership rather than the IC's since they are not taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test and may be lower than the rest of the unit's.
If the same IC leaves the Stubborn unit and gets in another Combat, or if the unit is wiped out in the Phase before, it is not longer fulfilling the conditions of Stubborn so will be in danger of negative affects when taking Morale or Pinning Tests.
5) In order for On Target to work, a unit must have a specific name: 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'. The unit must be arriving from Deep Strike. This unit is granted permission to Charge. For another effect, it must be attempting to Deep Strike within range of 2 other units with a specific name: 'Scout Squad'.
On Target provides a lit of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. It is exactly the same as Stubborn in this respect.
The main differences are that On Target is never going to be carried by an IC and only by a unit, so including a specific clause that only considers a case where a Character gets the rule and the rest of the unit does not is pointless and beyond redundant. Also that people are used to Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful, but On Target is new and considered over-powered to begin with.
If you want to discuss On Target from not allowing the IC to Charge due to it being a permission and not an effect, I welcome it, as it is a different consideration than what we have largely been discussing, as I said earlier.
But Charging or not, if that IC is joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad from a Shadowstrike Kill Team, is the first model to be placed for a Deep Strike, and it is within range of two Scout Squads from the same Shadowstrike Kill Team, it does not scatter.
*‘It’s after me!’ is the Tyranid Unique Deathleaper special rule: Nominate an enemy character at the beginning of the game and roll a D3. Whilst Deathleaper is alive, that model’s Leadership is reduced by the result.
on target, first the fire then the blade do not specify they benefit the unit.
when you are considering the IC joined to an Unit, the IC and the unit have separate special rules. We are told this under the section for ICs joining units. You have to look at the IC datasheet separetly than the veteran vanguard datasheet when determining rules simply because the rules actually tell you to do so. Even joined, they are treated separately in the rules at this step and it is not possible to find the ICs rules on the veteran vanguard squad datasheet. At which time you do so the IC is not on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet and vice versa. As such 'on target' cannot affect an IC, because it references the name of the datasheet. This coupled with the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules is why it does not work, when you check for the IC and Unit separetly for special rules to see who was what, as directed by the rules in the book to do so- the IC is not the vanguard veteran squad and the vanguard veteran squad is not the IC. The rules for ICs and joining units show that we are too look at them separately to determine who has what special rules, not together. If it were together they would not differentiate the unit and the IC during this check in the rulebook.
and in 7th counts as= is. The IC cannot count as being in the squad and not be in the squad at the same time- its not a shroedinger IC. It is a member of the unit for all purposes, except where noted. ICs joining units and special rules is such an exception as they treat them separately even when joined for checking if the special rules work with each other.
bottom line, the rule does not specify in any form it benefits the unit.
unrelated-
-ghost- there are rules that specify they affect units in a formation, and any attached IC off the top of my head the harlequin codex has a few.
Charistoph wrote:
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.
I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.
If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?
So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".
So your #1 is wholly refuted.
Charistoph wrote:
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.
I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule.
So your #2 is wholly refuted.
Charistoph wrote:
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.
The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule doesn't really care about the particulars of the special rules in question. It leaves all that business up to the special rules themselves. The IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.
So your #3 is wholly refuted.
Charistoph wrote:
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.
The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
So your #4 is wholly refuted.
Charistoph wrote:
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.
You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit)
Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit)
Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model)
Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit
It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.
It can get really complicated when we consider the exceptional cases of ICs with their own 'sub-units' (e.g. joined Fenrisian Wolf characters) who then join another unit, but again all we are doing is simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.
All that complexity is wonderfully simplified into a simple scan for a model with stubborn. If yes then the entire unit benefits from Stubborn. And that's all it takes for an attached IC to get stubborn from the joined unit.
Again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the entire unit, however complex that unit is defined.
And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.
So your #5 is wholly refuted.
So basically you have no argument.
But we already knew that.
The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.
If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.
blaktoof wrote:on target, first the fire then the blade do not specify they benefit the unit.
Explain, then, what entity they do benefit if they are not benefiting a unit? You have never properly explained this, so either you are epicly wrong or you are using a different ruleset.
What qualifies as a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" or "Assault Marine Squad" that can arrive by Deep Strike and Charge?
blaktoof wrote:when you are considering the IC joined to an Unit, the IC and the unit have separate special rules. We are told this under the section for ICs joining units. You have to look at the IC datasheet separetly than the veteran vanguard datasheet when determining rules simply because the rules actually tell you to do so. Even joined, they are treated separately in the rules at this step and it is not possible to find the ICs rules on the veteran vanguard squad datasheet. At which time you do so the IC is not on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet and vice versa. As such 'on target' cannot affect an IC, because it references the name of the datasheet. This coupled with the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules is why it does not work, when you check for the IC and Unit separetly for special rules to see who was what, as directed by the rules in the book to do so- the IC is not the vanguard veteran squad and the vanguard veteran squad is not the IC. The rules for ICs and joining units show that we are too look at them separately to determine who has what special rules, not together. If it were together they would not differentiate the unit and the IC during this check in the rulebook.
So you believe in the 2-in-1 theory that an IC joined to a unit is not one unit, but two?
If this was the case, I could just shoot out your ICs from the unit, and an IC could not benefit from Stubborn from the unit it joined. In addition, there is zero support for this in the actual rulebook we are using on this forum board.
By the way, we have repeatedly stated that the literal transference of the rules between the unit and IC is not how Stubborn works. Stubborn doesn't copy itself from the Dark Angel Tactical Squad and send the copy to the Blood Angel Captain. Those rules stay where they are at. We do agree with you on that mark.
You just need to understand that there is more going on here than that. Col_impact at least has that part down.
blaktoof wrote:and in 7th counts as= is. The IC cannot count as being in the squad and not be in the squad at the same time- its not a shroedinger IC. It is a member of the unit for all purposes, except where noted. ICs joining units and special rules is such an exception as they treat them separately even when joined for checking if the special rules work with each other.
Incorrect. "Counts as" = "temporarily is" to indicate a status that will not last, or "operating as", or "to be considered as", not as a pure "is". It is used in no other fashion.
A Flyer with Hover "counts as" a Fast Skimmer. If it actually became a Fast Skimmer, it could not revert to becoming a Flyer again. A Flying Monstrous Creature when Gliding would actually just BE a Jump Monstrous Creature and could never Swoop again.
blaktoof wrote:bottom line, the rule does not specify in any form it benefits the unit.
Bottom line, you have no clue about the relationship between units, models, and datasheets. Datasheets do not Charge. Army List Entries do not Charge.
And no Harlequin Formation Special Rule specifies ICs gaining a unit's benefit.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: #1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.
I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.
If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?
So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".
So your #1 is wholly refuted.
Yet, it is not literally stated as such. So, your argument here is not but an assumption of what you think the author intended. Marking this one as HYWPI, therefore lack of a RAW refute.
The ironic thing here is, I do not completely disagree. The difference is that I take it that section in IC Special Rules to mean exactly what it literally states, and that the rule itself cannot be transferred between IC and unit. Like Blacktoof said above, the rule does not transfer from datasheet to datasheet.
The only way around this is how Stubborn does it. How does Stubborn do it? Not by transferring any rule, but by placing the benefit on the unit the IC is in. And it is by placing that benefit on the whole unit without reservation of possession by the model (like Counter-Attack or Fleet) is how Stubborn "confers".
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: #2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.
I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses Adamantium Will And They Shall Know No Fear Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers Counter-attack Crusader Fearless Infiltrate Hit & Run Monster Hunter Move Through Cover Night Vision Preferred Enemy Shrouded Scout Skilled Rider Slow and Purposeful Split Fire Stealth Stubborn Tank Hunters Zealot
So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule. So your #2 is wholly refuted.
Counter-Attack does not actually provide any bonuses to an attached IC without Counter-Attack, by the way.
USRs (Unversal Special Rules) in the BRB can be carried by IC or by unit. Show me the IC in the Skyhammer or Shadowstrike Formations.
And you have continuously harped on how much this phrase is required, yet when it is completed in spirit, you cannot accept it. Show me a Shadowstrike Veteran Vanguard Squad that does not contain at least one model with On Target.
Your Refutation is therefore ignored as pointless and hypocritical.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: #3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.
The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.
So your #3 is wholly refuted.
Incorrect. ALL the clauses state who benefits. The unit cannot benefit unless ALL the requirements are met. You are only making assumptions that one clause of two is required. Singling out one phrase as a requirement is making an assumption from the author, especially without a statement specifically stating that.
Marking this one HYWPI, based on RAA. Refutation meaningless.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: #4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.
The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
So your #4 is wholly refuted.
The funny part with this one is that you actually support what I am saying with it. Because that IC is being represented by that word "unit" in order for it to actually work, but only by that word "unit".
So, your refutation is actually backfired to support what I have actually been saying about it.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: #5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.
You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
I am not getting confused. I am perfectly aware of what I was saying and the direction I was going. You apparently do not. Let's try it again.
When looking at the rule from the perspective of the IC not having the rule, but it benefits, we already know that this model does NOT have the special rule.
We know the unit already has this special rule so it already contains at least one model with this special rule.
The IC would not be classified as "at least one model with this special rule".
Therefore, this specific part of the phrase would only work specifically when a Character would be carrying the rule.
Therefore, when transferring a unit's special rule benefit to the IC, this particular clause is unimportant.
That is the language of this clause.
col_impact wrote:Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit) Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit) Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model) Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit
It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.
But again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the unit.
And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.
So your #5 is wholly refuted.
Ironically, you end up more supporting my argument with this than you may realize. The phrase itself is not important when looking at it from the perspective of going from the unit to the IC, but it is important when going to the IC from the unit.
Then we consider a rule that will never be possessed by an IC. How important would it be to have "at least one model with this special rule" when it is being literally fulfilled?
You're already making RAA with the "rules means benefits", why can you not extend this beyond that consideration then?
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.
If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.
Already proven. Your points do not take in to considerations my argument's perspective or rely on your own prejudiced assumptions of author intent. They ignore what Stubborn ACTUALLY says and go off making more prejudiced assumptions of author intent to rely on one clause and not all of them.
Charistoph wrote:
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.
I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.
If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?
So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".
So your #1 is wholly refuted.
Yet, it is not literally stated as such. So, your argument here is not but an assumption of what you think the author intended. Marking this one as HYWPI, therefore lack of a RAW refute.
The ironic thing here is, I do not completely disagree. The difference is that I take it that section in IC Special Rules to mean exactly what it literally states, and that the rule itself cannot be transferred between IC and unit. Like Blacktoof said above, the rule does not transfer from datasheet to datasheet.
The only way around this is how Stubborn does it. How does Stubborn do it? Not by transferring any rule, but by placing the benefit on the unit the IC is in. And it is by placing that benefit on the whole unit without reservation of possession by the model (like Counter-Attack or Fleet) is how Stubborn "confers".
I adhere strictly to the usage of confer in the BRB and that is how I claim RAW.
If you are taking a dictionary meaning of confer over the usage of confer in the BRB, then you are the one who is going against RAW.
That's what RAW mean, so unless you can point to a rule in the BRB that allows you to use the dictionary as a rule source that trumps the BRB, then your argument is being tossed aside on this point as silly and so obviously against RAW as to be laughable.
Charistoph wrote:
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.
I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule.
So your #2 is wholly refuted.
Counter-Attack does not actually provide any bonuses to an attached IC without Counter-Attack, by the way.
USRs (Unversal Special Rules) in the BRB can be carried by IC or by unit. Show me the IC in the Skyhammer or Shadowstrike Formations.
And you have continuously harped on how much this phrase is required, yet when it is completed in spirit, you cannot accept it. Show me a Shadowstrike Veteran Vanguard Squad that does not contain at least one model with On Target.
Your Refutation is therefore ignored as pointless and hypocritical.
You cannot just complete the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule "in spirit". The IC Special Rules rule requires you to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or else the special rules of the unit do not extend to the attached IC and vice versa.
So you need to pay the requirement. That's the rules as they are written. There is no way around it unless you want to invoke upon the power of house ruling.
Charistoph wrote:
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.
The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.
So your #3 is wholly refuted.
Incorrect. ALL the clauses state who benefits. The unit cannot benefit unless ALL the requirements are met. You are only making assumptions that one clause of two is required. Singling out one phrase as a requirement is making an assumption from the author, especially without a statement specifically stating that.
Marking this one HYWPI, based on RAA. Refutation meaningless.
Nobody is saying that you can ignore requirements or the mechanics of the special rule while implementing a special rule. But the IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the effects of the special rules are shared between attached IC and the joined unit. The IC Special Rules rule makes no mention of Leadership Tests, Pinning, or Morale checks and therefore is implementing no rules of its own in those areas that would need to be overridden. It leaves all that to the particular special rule to regulate.
So you need to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule and meet its requirements and only its requirements. That is RAW. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue by rattling on and on about non-relevant stuff as if it mattered. The rules are exceedingly clear. It is you who are being willfully unclear.
Charistoph wrote:
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.
The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
So your #4 is wholly refuted.
The funny part with this one is that you actually support what I am saying with it. Because that IC is being represented by that word "unit" in order for it to actually work, but only by that word "unit".
So, your refutation is actually backfired to support what I have actually been saying about it.
And if the IC Special Rules rule did not exist, then your argument would win out. But the rule exists and you cannot ignore it. The IC Special Rules rule has indicated clearly in the case of a 'combined unit' (ie a unit comprised of an IC attached to a unit he joins) that the special rules of the unit and the special rules of the IC are not extended to the other party.
The IC Special Rules rule also indicates quite clearly that the only way to extend the benefits of special rules from a joined unit to the attached IC (and vice versa) is to include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
I have been able to successfully point to the exact something in Stubborn (ie a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") that is being required of the IC Special Rules rule and have proven how the clause logically works to indeed extend the benefits of the special rules from the joined unit to the attached IC.
You have been wholly unable to point to anything in the On Target rule. Therefore the On Target special rule does not extend to the attached IC.
Charistoph wrote:
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.
You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
I am not getting confused. I am perfectly aware of what I was saying and the direction I was going. You apparently do not. Let's try it again.
When looking at the rule from the perspective of the IC not having the rule, but it benefits, we already know that this model does NOT have the special rule.
We know the unit already has this special rule so it already contains at least one model with this special rule.
The IC would not be classified as "at least one model with this special rule".
Therefore, this specific part of the phrase would only work specifically when a Character would be carrying the rule.
Therefore, when transferring a unit's special rule benefit to the IC, this particular clause is unimportant.
That is the language of this clause.
col_impact wrote:Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit)
Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit)
Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model)
Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit
It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.
But again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the unit.
And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.
So your #5 is wholly refuted.
Ironically, you end up more supporting my argument with this than you may realize. The phrase itself is not important when looking at it from the perspective of going from the unit to the IC, but it is important when going to the IC from the unit.
Then we consider a rule that will never be possessed by an IC. How important would it be to have "at least one model with this special rule" when it is being literally fulfilled?
You're already making RAA with the "rules means benefits", why can you not extend this beyond that consideration then?
The IC Special Rules rule handles the extending of the effect of special rules from both perspectives. The perspective of the IC does not get special consideration and is still subject to having to provide something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
I realize that you want to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule. But it's a rule that has power over the On Target special rule and you cannot ignore it. You need to pay its requirements in order to extend the benefit of the On Target rule to the attached IC and that means pointing to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.
If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.
Already proven. Your points do not take in to considerations my argument's perspective or rely on your own prejudiced assumptions of author intent. They ignore what Stubborn ACTUALLY says and go off making more prejudiced assumptions of author intent to rely on one clause and not all of them.
I adhere exactly to RAW. I cannot take into consideration your argument's perspective unless it is actually supported by RAW.
The only prejudice I have is a prejudice for RAW.
You are trying to pay a requirement "in spirit" (as you put it) rather than actually paying the requirement.
So, sorry, unless you can point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", On Target will not extend the benefits of its special rule to the attached IC.
You have to adhere to the rules and you have to pay the requirements of the rules.
But, hey, if you want to house rule your non-RAW interpretation for your local play group then by all means you should go for it.
Your interpretation rests on reading "conferred" completely out of context and claiming it's the only definition allowed. Conferring a special rule simply does not mean the same as conferring the benefits of a special rule, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. It's being used synonymously with "bestow".
Indeed, and amusingly this is a change not backed up by any rule as written, either. Col cannot point to a rule stating that you must use the 40k definition, and also cannot prove that "benefit" is the contextual definition - because it isn't
They also cannot post to the specific phrase that incorporates the IC in stubborn, which is why Col is ignoring the request to do so. Their argument utterly unraveling at this point
FACT: if you ignore the "normal member of the unit" rule , then stubborn S benefit cannot affect the IC. If you don't ignore it, then it may do. The normal member rule is essential to this working. The EXAMPLE of stubborn - the non exhaustive example, something col believes otherwise it seems - is just that. An example.
Unit with is just as inclusive as "at least one model with"
Col will, however, not back down. Even when proven wrong over and over and over as in this thread and others
Blaktoof is also apparently still confused over VVS being, RAW, the unit name. It is the name of the unit. VVS refers to the unit. They repeat this LIE over and over, hoping people,will forget it.
NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC
It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.
Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.
I love this guy. I like this style of arguing, it's starting to grow on me. It's so easy. Here, let me try this style again.
Yawn~
NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is through the use of a clause in the form of "A unit that contains at least one model ...".
Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual clause in "... On Target" - did you find that yet? Or not. Your choice.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Indeed, and amusingly this is a change not backed up by any rule as written, either. Col cannot point to a rule stating that you must use the 40k definition, and also cannot prove that "benefit" is the contextual definition - because it isn't
They also cannot post to the specific phrase that incorporates the IC in stubborn, which is why Col is ignoring the request to do so. Their argument utterly unraveling at this point
FACT: if you ignore the "normal member of the unit" rule , then stubborn S benefit cannot affect the IC. If you don't ignore it, then it may do. The normal member rule is essential to this working. The EXAMPLE of stubborn - the non exhaustive example, something col believes otherwise it seems - is just that. An example.
Unit with is just as inclusive as "at least one model with"
Col will, however, not back down. Even when proven wrong over and over and over as in this thread and others
Blaktoof is also apparently still confused over VVS being, RAW, the unit name. It is the name of the unit. VVS refers to the unit. They repeat this LIE over and over, hoping people,will forget it.
And it continues. He thinks that if he says FACT in front of something, it makes it true. He literally ignores that Stubborn does not make use of the normal member rule in any way. Hahahhaaha.
Except Stubborn does. It's literally only conferred to the IC because the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC isn't explicitly called out, but is included because, as part of the unit, the IC is part of the target of the effect of Stubborn.
Except Stubborn doesn't. It is literally conferred to the IC through the use of a clause. The IC isn't explicitly called out, but is included in the effect of Stubborn because of a clause that includes it.
Stubborn: "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
How does that sentence up there, make use of the 'normal member' rule? The IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes. The only time it is not the case, is in special rules.
For special rules, the IC is not included in the special rule or it's effect until it has been specified.
For Stubborn, the IC is not included in the effect until it says - "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
Exactly. I agree with your interpretation that the IC is included in the unit being affected and thus gains the benefit of Stubborn. That IS the "normal member" argument that nos and I (and several others) have been arguing for.
How is this any different from being part of a unit getting the benefit of ...On Target? Stubborn gives the unit benefit, and it is only by virtue of being part of the unit that the IC benefits. ...On Target gives the Vanguard Veteran Squad (i.e. unit to everyone that isn't blacktoof) a benefit, and by virtue of being part of the unit for all rules purposes the IC also gets the benefit. Any other reading would require "all rules purposes" to not mean all rules purposes, which makes no sense.
I don't agree that Nos is arguing anything with his tactics but I digress, that isn't important.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)..."
Stubborn has made a specification that includes the IC in "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
The rule says "unless specified... (as in Stubborn)...". We know that Stubborn has a clause to include IC's to gain the benefit of Stubborn. We can infer there must be a clause of some sort to include the IC.
On Target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..."
Where is the clause that include IC's to gain the benefit of On Target?
The IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes. The only time it is not the case is in special rules. In Stubborn (and all other special rules), there is a clause to include IC's. In On Target, there is not.
The thing is, Stubborn doesn't specify anything at all that ...On Target doesn't. "If a unit with at least one model..." is just as specific as "A Vanguard Veteran squad...". The IC is a subset of "a unit with at least one model..." just as it is a subset of "a Vanguard Veteran squad...". Stubborn thus provides exactly the same clause for the IC as ...On Target: being part of the unit. There is nothing saying that the Vanguard Veteran squad has to be comprised entirely of models with the rule in order for it to work. The rule targets the Vanguard Veteran squad in its entirety, the rule counts the IC as part of the Vanguard Veteran squad when it applies as per "all rules purposes", the IC is allowed to charge.
Please show where ICs are SPECIFIED in the stubborn rule. You understand the word "specific", yes? A unit with ... Does not "specify" an IC at all - as without the normal member rule, you don't know you are allowed to count the IC as a member of the unit. It's called a permissive rule set.
Since you will continue to ignore this point, your comcession as per the tenets is accepted. Feel free to not respond further , I will not until you actually address the argument, and follow the tenets instead of breaking rule one.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Your interpretation rests on reading "conferred" completely out of context and claiming it's the only definition allowed. Conferring a special rule simply does not mean the same as conferring the benefits of a special rule, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. It's being used synonymously with "bestow".
Show how Stubborn is bestowed onto the IC then. You cannot.
If confer means to bestow then ICs will get Stubborn and other special rules by joining a unit with Stubborn and still have those special rules after leaving the unit. That's what bestow means.
In fact point to any special rule of the unit and show how the rule is bestowed. You cannot.
Here is a list to help you.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot
I will adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the BRB. They use 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of a special rule". Just look at the use of confer in the case of Stubborn. We have no choice but to follow the usage of 'confer' in the case of Stubborn as the standard.
If you want to actually counter my argument you will need to find usage in the BRB that counters my claim. The dictionary is not a rules source and the use of dictionaries in rules argument is not allowed in YMDC. So good luck with that.
I will continue to use 'confer' the way the BRB uses it. To do otherwise would not be RAW.
In fact anyone who uses a dictionary meaning of 'confer' in place of the actual usage of 'confer' in the BRB is house ruling so please mark your responses as such.
Please show where ICs are SPECIFIED in the stubborn rule. You understand the word "specific", yes? A unit with ... Does not "specify" an IC at all - as without the normal member rule, you don't know you are allowed to count the IC as a member of the unit. It's called a permissive rule set.
Since you will continue to ignore this point, your comcession as per the tenets is accepted. Feel free to not respond further , I will not until you actually address the argument, and follow the tenets instead of breaking rule one.
This clause . . .
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.
Nos, point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in On Target or concede. You have simply been filling up page after page of this thread ignoring that rule requirement.
If you want to hand wave the IC Special Rules rule away then simply mark your posts as HYWPI per the tenets of the forum.
We will continue to mark our threads as RAW since we can definitively point to the clause in Stubborn that incorporates the IC as an attached model and can definitively say that On Target has nothing satisfying "specified in the rules itself (as in Stubborn)" that would do the same so On Target does not extend the effect of its rule to attached ICs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The thing is, Stubborn doesn't specify anything at all that ...On Target doesn't. "If a unit with at least one model..." is just as specific as "A Vanguard Veteran squad...". The IC is a subset of "a unit with at least one model..." just as it is a subset of "a Vanguard Veteran squad...". Stubborn thus provides exactly the same clause for the IC as ...On Target: being part of the unit. There is nothing saying that the Vanguard Veteran squad has to be comprised entirely of models with the rule in order for it to work. The rule targets the Vanguard Veteran squad in its entirety, the rule counts the IC as part of the Vanguard Veteran squad when it applies as per "all rules purposes", the IC is allowed to charge.
The IC Special Rules rule has made it clear that simply being a part of the unit is not sufficient to allow the effects of special rules to extend from the unit to attached ICs and vice versa.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
The only exception to this state of 'no sharing' of benefits of special rules between the joined unit and attached ICs is to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
Stubborn includes a clause specified in the rule itself that logically incorporates attached models ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) so we use that as the standard for satisfying the IC Special Rules rule.
On Target includes no such clause or anything "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" so On Target does not get exception to the IC Special Rules rule.
This is a permissive rule set and the burden is on you to definitively satisfy the IC Special Rules rule requirement. You have failed to do so. Therefore On Target does not extend the benefit of its rule to the attached IC.
So it "logically incorporates" the IC, but you cannot point to a rule - other than the normal member rule - that actually states this
Your position CANNOT be raw, as you just stated you have yet again made a rule up.
Mark your posts hywpi, as they fail any test of raw. You have filled page after page with block quotes and walls of text, yet cannot convince anyone of your position.
Stubborn is conferred to the IC by virtue of it being part of the unit for all rules purposes. Once it leaves the unit, it no longer fulfils the conditions for having the rule conferred to it, and thus loses it; hence the various references to ongoing effects that have been made.
I'll try another angle:
The Vanguard Veteran squad without an IC is allowed to charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. The Datasheet rule take precedence over the BRB because the Datasheet rule is more advanced.
The Independent Character is considered a member of the unit (i.e. the Vanguard Veteran Squad) for all rules purposes (i.e. whenever a rule deals with the unit as a whole, the IC is included).
If you don't let the Vanguard Veteran squad charge after deep striking (as long as the state of having deep struck is the only thing preventing the unit from charging) you are not following ...On Target's instructions, letting a less advanced rule take precedence over a more advanced rule.
I'd also be much obliged if you stopped with the whole "please mark your post with X" (and that goes for you too nos). It's pretty damn obvious that we disagree, but that only means that we should continue arguing (or giving up). "Please mark your post X" and variations of it is essentially equivalent to writing I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG LOLOLOLOLOLOL at the end of each post, and there's enough of that on both sides in this thread already.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.
Do we know that 100%? Lets apply logic:
To allow Stubborn to be usable by the Unit one Model in the Unit needs this Rule
so this is a condition nothing else. This allows to use Stubborn carried eighter by a model of the Unit or else carried by an IC
When the condition is met then the Unit may use Stubborn.
Your fallacy is that you mix the condition when Stubborn is usable with the user of the rule. Read it this way:
"A Unit that fulfills the required condition may roll..."
So now show me the part that includes the IC as a benefiting model. You can't! Why you can't do that? because Stubborn does not mention the IC as benefiting explicitly.
Why do we still know that a IC is benefitting of the effect of Stubborn? Because we know 100% that a Ic that joins a Unit counts as a full member of that unit for all rule purposes. So every time the Unit as a whole is the target of a effect, or a rule, or a activity the IC is a Model of that Unit.
Now when we look at the VVS there is no explicit condition that has to be fulfilled. It just stated the unit may assault in the same turn after deepstrike.
We apply the logic uses in Stubborn and see as a IC counts as a member of the unit the VVS may still do as On Target allows us to do.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.
Do we know that 100%? Lets apply logic:
To allow Stubborn to be usable by the Unit one Model in the Unit needs this Rule
so this is a condition nothing else. This allows to use Stubborn carried eighter by a model of the Unit or else carried by an IC
When the condition is met then the Unit may use Stubborn.
Your fallacy is that you mix the condition when Stubborn is usable with the user of the rule. Read it this way:
"A Unit that fulfills the required condition may roll..."
So now show me the part that includes the IC as a benefiting model. You can't! Why you can't do that? because Stubborn does not mention the IC as benefiting explicitly.
Why do we still know that a IC is benefitting of the effect of Stubborn? Because we know 100% that a Ic that joins a Unit counts as a full member of that unit for all rule purposes. So every time the Unit as a whole is the target of a effect, or a rule, or a activity the IC is a Model of that Unit.
Now when we look at the VVS there is no explicit condition that has to be fulfilled. It just stated the unit may assault in the same turn after deepstrike.
We apply the logic uses in Stubborn and see as a IC counts as a member of the unit the VVS may still do as On Target allows us to do.
There is no fallacy in my argument.
You are just trying to pay the requirement of a rule without paying the requirement of a rule.
We know that the IC has joined the unit. That's the given of the IC Special Rules rule
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit . . .
We also know that the IC Special Rules rule overrides the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" by providing exceptions to way the IC is affected by the special rules of the unit. In terms of special rules of the unit, the IC does not count as part of the unit for all purposes, the IC must satisfy and adhere to the IC Special Rules rule instead.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
The way an IC gets to benefit from the special rule of a unit is by having something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"
Now we know that the IC has joined the unit, so the clause . . .
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" [which is found in Stubborn]
. . . logically incorporates any models that have joined the unit which includes the IC AND overrides the 'no sharing of the effects of special rules' state that the IC Special Rules rule has placed the 'combined unit' in.
So the IC is incorporated with a specific clause in the Stubborn rule itself that does not specifically mention the IC but that nonetheless logically and irrefutably incorporates the IC.
So you must point to something "specified in the [On Target] rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that would logically incorporate any models that have joined the unit. The IC Special Rules rule has decreed that ICs that have joined a unit do not automatically benefit from the special rules of the unit. So you must point to something that will specifically override it IN THE SPECIAL RULE ITSELF (as in Stubborn).
col_impact wrote: I adhere strictly to the usage of confer in the BRB and that is how I claim RAW.
If you are taking a dictionary meaning of confer over the usage of confer in the BRB, then you are the one who is going against RAW.
That's what RAW mean, so unless you can point to a rule in the BRB that allows you to use the dictionary as a rule source that trumps the BRB, then your argument is being tossed aside on this point as silly and so obviously against RAW as to be laughable.
If you completely adhered to RAW, then you wouldn't be trying to consider what "the spirit" of "confer the special rules" as "confers the benefits of the special rules", but take it as literally as I stated it. The term "confer" is never specifically defined as such. As such any change from the OED is pure assumption.
This gets even more interesting because:
col_impact wrote: You cannot just complete the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule "in spirit". The IC Special Rules rule requires you to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or else the special rules of the unit do not extend to the attached IC and vice versa.
So you need to pay the requirement. That's the rules as they are written. There is no way around it unless you want to invoke upon the power of house ruling.
If you can change the definition of "confer" by using the spirit of how Stubborn confers its rules, then I can use that same spirit to ignore requiring a literal phrase by just fulfilling its requirements any way. Your hypocrisy here is absolutely amazing.
col_impact wrote: Nobody is saying that you can ignore requirements or the mechanics of the special rule while implementing a special rule. But the IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the effects of the special rules are shared between attached IC and the joined unit. The IC Special Rules rule makes no mention of Leadership Tests, Pinning, or Morale checks and therefore is implementing no rules of its own in those areas that would need to be overridden. It leaves all that to the particular special rule to regulate.
It makes as much mention of Leadership, Pinning, and Morale Checks as it does "containing at least one model with this special rule". Therefore, this one clause cannot be any more of the requirement than the other. Care to actually quote and highlight where that IC section is as specific as you claim?
From my memory, it is vague only references to how Stubborn works. And Stubborn works with two clauses, not one, and is completely denied with a third.
col_impact wrote: So you need to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule and meet its requirements and only its requirements. That is RAW. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue by rattling on and on about non-relevant stuff as if it mattered. The rules are exceedingly clear. It is you who are being willfully unclear.
Oddly enough. I have. You are the one adding "spirit" to one rule, and taking one clause literally while ignoring a second.
col_impact wrote: I adhere exactly to RAW. I cannot take into consideration your argument's perspective unless it is actually supported by RAW.
The only prejudice I have is a prejudice for RAW.
You are trying to pay a requirement "in spirit" (as you put it) rather than actually paying the requirement.
So, sorry, unless you can point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", On Target will not extend the benefits of its special rule to the attached IC.
You have to adhere to the rules and you have to pay the requirements of the rules.
But, hey, if you want to house rule your non-RAW interpretation for your local play group then by all means you should go for it.
In my play group we play strictly by RAW.
Your very first paragraph quoted above puts this as either RAW is not what you think it means, you are a hypocrite, or you are a liar.
In order for Stubborn's method to change the IC Special Rules section to mean "a unit's special rules' benefits are not conferred to the IC", you have to take the "spirit" of how Stubborn works. You cannot take it literally and still have it work this way.
Even more so, the very reference used carries more conditions that you use, but in order to ignore the second, you have to take the "spirit" of how Stubborn works. This is not taking it literally, which is what RAW (Rules As Written) means.
Keep in mind, that this is applying YOUR standard here, not mine. And it does not hold up under its own weight.
