Say a Librarian and Sanguinary Priest are in an Assault Squad - the Librarian and Priest do not have the Red Thirst rule, but they are joined to the squad at the beginning of the game.

I roll for thirst, and receive a 1, meaning the squad gets Furious Charge and Fearless for the duration of the game. Do the ICs get that rule while they're in the squad?

If they do, what happens if they leave the squad for any reason?

Based on the way USR are defined in the BRB (i.e. certain rules explicitly say they are applied/lost when an IC joins/leaves a unit), unless the rule specifically says that the SP and the Librarian are affected, i'd say they weren't affected.

Speculation only though, YMMV.

Here's my take: the rules say "on a score of 1...the entire squad is treated as having the furious charge and fearless special rules".

So the Librarian would fall back, and the squad would take fearless saves? Seems odd to me.

Well if I rember correctly, doesnt Fearless get added to an IC joining a fearless unit? I can;t honestly remember.

If the IC DOES gain fearless from joining a fearless unit, then yes he'd be fearless - but he wouldn;t have the red thirst unless he failed his own individual roll. Furious Charge IIRC, is definately NOT an ability that an IC gains from joining a unit.

liam0404 wrote:Well if I rember correctly, doesnt Fearless get added to an IC joining a fearless unit? I can;t honestly remember.

If the IC DOES gain fearless from joining a fearless unit, then yes he'd be fearless - but he wouldn;t have the red thirst unless he failed his own individual roll. Furious Charge IIRC, is definately NOT an ability that an IC gains from joining a unit.

This is correct

That sounds right - thanks!

And the Librarian and Priest do not have their own thirst roll.

I agree the Librarian can't get FC from the assault squad's red thirst roll, but he'll get it from being within 6" of the priest.

Right. Don't think of it as 'The Red Thirst' rather than thinking of it like the assault squad has Fearless and Furious Charge (that was granted via the Red Thirst rule). Now, if they had those two USRs independantly of the librarian, would the libriarian be affected? Fearless - yes. FC - no.

As a BA player I would disagree. The Red Thirst rule, says you roll after deployment to see if the squad falls to the Red Thirst. If you attach any IC's to a squad are they not a part of the squad?

Since they are a part of the squad they are affected by the roll. They lose ATSKNF and gain fearless becasue they are a part of the squad when you rolled for Red Thirst.

I would love to agree with both sides, as I can see both sides, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to come down onto the side of 'Libby gets RT bonuses'. This is because when an IC joins a unit/squad, they become a part of said unit, correct? The BA codex then says, pertaining to the RT rule, that, if it is failed (or passed, depending on your point of view ) the UNIT (/squad, whatever, same thing ) gains the following USR's, Fearless and FnP, therefore, as the Libby is part of the unit, surely he should also gain the bonuses? My $0.02

I thought they gained Furious Charge? FnP would be a bit much...

So what happens when he leaves the squad or they are killed around him? Does he then retain Fearless and Furious Charge (not FnP)? I don't think so.

Ah, my bad, both begin with the same letter Yes I meant FC

@Arschbombe; I think I agree with you, as he WAS part of the unit, thus elligible to gain the rules, but if he detaches/unit dies, he becomes his own unit again doesn't he, so yes, I would say (also as a BA player) that he would lose those abilities.

I think everyone's on the same page with regard to Fearless since it is a USR that does get conferred to ICs who have joined with units who have it. FC is not one that gets conferred. There's no mechanism for the Red Thirst rule itself to get conferred as it is not a USR and there is no text in the BA dex that says ICs without it get it from squads they're attached to.

Page 48, Right Column, Special Rules.
"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rule from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in 'Stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character<snip>"

Claiming that a model without Red Thirst to get the benefits and drawbacks of Red Thirst because the squad of the unit to which he is joined is a stretch.

Mahtamori wrote:Claiming that a model without Red Thirst to get the benefits and drawbacks of Red Thirst because the squad of the unit to which he is joined is a stretch.

QFT.

So, in short, No, the IC doesn't suffer the Red Thirst's effects because he doesn't have the Red Thirst Rule.

He will be "Fearless" if he is with a Fearless unit, but won't have FC.

Gwar! wrote:So, in short, No, the IC doesn't suffer the Red Thirst's effects because he doesn't have the Red Thirst Rule.

He will be "Fearless" if he is with a Fearless unit, but won't have FC.

Only problem with this is that most of the BA IC's do have a rule which is effected when the red thirst roll is "successful".

If you read the whole Red Thirst Specail rule, it says at the end that the unit has Fearless and FC instead of ATSKNF. So at that point lets say for instance, Dante is joined to a sqaud who rolls a 1 on red thirst, he would then loose ATSKNF because he is a part of the unit. He will also gain Fearless and FC.

This is just like Vulkan and his chapter tactics. Dreadnaughts are all to gain the ability of Vulkan with the twin-linked melta's but they do not give up combat tactics because they do not have.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, in short, No, the IC doesn't suffer the Red Thirst's effects because he doesn't have the Red Thirst Rule.

He will be "Fearless" if he is with a Fearless unit, but won't have FC.

Only problem with this is that most of the BA IC's do have a rule which is effected when the red thirst roll is "successful".

If you read the whole Red Thirst Specail rule, it says at the end that the unit has Fearless and FC instead of ATSKNF. So at that point lets say for instance, Dante is joined to a sqaud who rolls a 1 on red thirst, he would then loose ATSKNF because he is a part of the unit. He will also gain Fearless and FC.

This is just like Vulkan and his chapter tactics. Dreadnaughts are all to gain the ability of Vulkan with the twin-linked melta's but they do not give up combat tactics because they do not have.

No. ATSKNF is not transferable to squads the IC joins to and Red Thirst is not transferable to ICs joined to the squad. Dante still has ATSKNF, but in a squad that is fearless it has no meaning. It should be noted that as long as Dante is part of the squad, he is Fearless and will be subject to No Retreat! as well.

Mahtamori wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, in short, No, the IC doesn't suffer the Red Thirst's effects because he doesn't have the Red Thirst Rule.

He will be "Fearless" if he is with a Fearless unit, but won't have FC.

Only problem with this is that most of the BA IC's do have a rule which is effected when the red thirst roll is "successful".

If you read the whole Red Thirst Specail rule, it says at the end that the unit has Fearless and FC instead of ATSKNF. So at that point lets say for instance, Dante is joined to a sqaud who rolls a 1 on red thirst, he would then loose ATSKNF because he is a part of the unit. He will also gain Fearless and FC.

This is just like Vulkan and his chapter tactics. Dreadnaughts are all to gain the ability of Vulkan with the twin-linked melta's but they do not give up combat tactics because they do not have.

No. ATSKNF is not transferable to squads the IC joins to and Red Thirst is not transferable to ICs joined to the squad. Dante still has ATSKNF, but in a squad that is fearless it has no meaning. It should be noted that as long as Dante is part of the squad, he is Fearless and will be subject to No Retreat! as well.

It is not whether ATSKNF is transferable it is that the Red Thirst rule specifically says and I quote "On a score of a 1, one or more members of the squad have succumbed to the red thirst and the ENTIRE squad is treat as having Furious Charge and Fearleass specail rules instead of And They Shall Know No Fear for the Duration of the game."

So at which point would Dante be a part of the squad? Is he a part of the ENTIRE squad? Does he have ATSKNF? Does Red Thirst effect all models in a squad?

Dante is never part of the squad. He is an IC attached to the squad at deployment.

Gwar! wrote:Dante is never part of the squad. He is an IC attached to the squad at deployment.

So Gwar what your saying is attaching a IC to a squad is not the same as a squad that has an IC in it? Help me understand your logic please! As far as I know when you attach an IC to a squad you treat it as a model in the squad. The only times there are execptions to this is when you are moving the IC away from the squad or during attacks in close combat, which are both rules that specificy what to do in those instances. So to say an IC is attached to the squad but not part of it is ludicris.

Additionally, I would like you to cite a page reference to back up your statment thank you.

Happens after deployment, and it's not a USR IC is part of the unit... unless I've missed something...

Special rules do not transfer to characters unless otherwise specified.

I think that is USR's.

In this case The Red Thirst specifies that the entire squad is treated as having Fearless and Furious Charge instead of ATSKNF.

So is the IC a part of the squad? Yes. Did the squad roll a 1 for The Red Thirst? Yes. The Entire Squad gains these rules and loses this rule.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I think that is USR's.

In this case The Red Thirst specifies that the entire squad is treated as having Fearless and Furious Charge instead of ATSKNF.

So is the IC a part of the squad? Yes. Did the squad roll a 1 for The Red Thirst? Yes. The Entire Squad gains these rules and loses this rule.

No, He is not part of the squad.

If he was, he would never be able to leave.

Secondly, the IC doesn't have The Red Thirst, so he wouldn't be affected by the roll anyway.

Unless you can find some refference that gives specific rules how to treat army specific special rules, we have no choice but to treat them the same way we do universal ones.

Gwar! wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I think that is USR's.

In this case The Red Thirst specifies that the entire squad is treated as having Fearless and Furious Charge instead of ATSKNF.

So is the IC a part of the squad? Yes. Did the squad roll a 1 for The Red Thirst? Yes. The Entire Squad gains these rules and loses this rule.

No, He is not part of the squad.

If he was, he would never be able to leave.

Secondly, the IC doesn't have The Red Thirst, so he wouldn't be affected by the roll anyway.

First thing first, Gwar when an IC joins a squad you treat them as part of the squad. Such is the case in shooting coherency and if the unit is falling back. So to say that an IC that has joined a squad is not a part of it is unfounded.

Secondly, Hoverboy on page 74 of the BRB it outlines that "Many units of models in Warhammer 40k have unique specail rules. There are, however , quite a few specail rules that are shared by several units, even across different codex books...." When it comes to army specific rules they are governed by the codex. When they have a reference they refer you to the USR's. It also states that if the Specail rule is different, the one in the codex takes precedence. So the only time you are to treat rules like USR's are when they are like USR's and refer to to them. Even at that point most of the time the Codex takes precedence.

And you have it the other way around (which I did not catch at first)!Specail rules marked with an * (Asterisk) are automatically lost by an IC joining a unit without this rule and vice versa. The Red Thirst has no such mark.

~!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:First thing first, Gwar when an IC joins a squad you treat them as part of the squad.

Exactly, you TREAT them as pert of the squad for the purposes of shooting only. THEY DO NOT BECOME PART OF THE SQUAD.

Secondly, the IC does not have the Red Thirst Special Rule, so why would it affect him when the Red Thirst only affects models with that special rule?

Sorry Kapitalist-Pig, but you are completely and utterly wrong.

If characters who begin the game joined to a squad, benefit from Red Thirst, then that would imply that characters who join a squad with red thirst will also benefit from red thirst.

In my opinion the rule is unclear. . So either interpretation seems somewhat valid.

If we are going on rules as written... The book does say the 'entire squad'. And suggests that if one Blood Angel succumbs to the Red Thirst then all the Blood Angels nearby will gain Fearless and Furious Charge.

On the other hand the 40k rulebook never uses the word 'squad' when it talks about Joining ICs.

So long as we can all agree that IC would definitely loose Red Thirst if they left the squad then I don't really care either way.

Page 3 gives you that "squad, teams, sections" and similar are synonymous with "unit".

Yes, if a character in the squad has Red Thirst, then he will succumb to it along with his squad. You will care when he gains Furious Charge when he shouldn't have. Generally speaking, the BA characters without Red Thirst are already beefy enough.

Mahtamori wrote:Page 3 gives you that "squad, teams, sections" and similar are synonymous with "unit".

Yes, if a character in the squad has Red Thirst, then he will succumb to it along with his squad. You will care when he gains Furious Charge when he shouldn't have. Generally speaking, the BA characters without Red Thirst are already beefy enough.

No, HE WILL NOT. He is not part of the squad, he is only attached temporarily. He does not have the Red Thirst rule and will NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES gain the effects of the rule. The only thing that effects him is the USR Fearless, which effects him because the rules for USR's say so.

How hard is that to understand?

Consider this BA players. The IC is a unit in its own right. Say you have a librarian joining a regular BA squad. Does the squad gain his special rules? Like his ability to use psychic powers? No they don't. The red thirst is the same deal. Special rules are not shared between the units UNLESS EXPLICITY SPECIFIED.

Gwar! wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Page 3 gives you that "squad, teams, sections" and similar are synonymous with "unit".

Yes, if a character in the squad has Red Thirst, then he will succumb to it along with his squad. You will care when he gains Furious Charge when he shouldn't have. Generally speaking, the BA characters without Red Thirst are already beefy enough.

No, HE WILL NOT. He is not part of the squad, he is only attached temporarily. He does not have the Red Thirst rule and will NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES gain the effects of the rule. The only thing that effects him is the USR Fearless, which effects him because the rules for USR's say so.

How hard is that to understand?

Time to chill and read again.

If the character has Red Thirst special rule, then yes that character will succumb as well.
If he does not, then SmackCakes should care if a character gain FC when according to RAW he shouldn't.
Correct?

No characters (Independent or otherwise) have TRT in the BA codex.

Gwar! wrote:No characters (Independent or otherwise) have TRT in the BA codex.

Then that is settled. I actually didn't check if any had, but I suppose the "yes, if" comes down to a hypothetical situation, nothing more.

Do the BA get character squad upgrades? I.e instead of a sergeant, you can take "veteran sergeant X". As that wouldn't be an IC, I can see a case for that type of model getting TRT.

IC's remain a whopping and resounding NO.

liam0404 wrote:Do the BA get character squad upgrades? I.e instead of a sergeant, you can take "veteran sergeant X". As that wouldn't be an IC, I can see a case for that type of model getting TRT.

IC's remain a whopping and resounding NO.

The only Upgrade character in the BA army is Lemartes, who is Death Company and so doesn't have TRT either.

Well that answers that!

Lemartes doesn't have it because he has full blown Black Rage.

Honour guard are subject to TRT and they come with a sanguinary novitiate and can have one member upgraded to a blood champion. The rule seems to apply to all blood angels fighting in groups.

I do not see why people think the IC needs to have the Red Thirst rule for it to effect him. Most units don't have Liturgies of Blood but if they are in the same squad as someone who does then they are subject to its effects. The Red Thirst rule explicitly states it effects the 'entire squad'.

I'm doubtful if the codex writers intended for TRT to effect ICs. But when I read the rule book, then I read the codex, then I read the rule book again... I have to say that like it or not, RAW appears to say that ICs are effected. If you don't want to interpret it like that then that's fine by me. But if someone insisted that was the case I don't see how they can be proven false unless GW clarifies it in an FAQ.

SmackCakes wrote:I do not see why people think the IC needs to have the Red Thirst rule for it to effect him. Most units don't have Liturgies of Blood but if they are in the same squad as someone who does then they are subject to its effects.

Because the rule says that it affects them.

The Red Thirst rule explicitly states it effects the 'entire squad'.

Which the IC is not part of.

I'm doubtful if the codex writers intended for TRT to effect ICs.

Good, because the RaW also indicates this.

But if someone insisted that was the case I don't see how they can be proven false unless GW clarifies it in an FAQ.

Except for the multitude of ways we have shown you time and time again in this thread.

@smack cakes

Sorry but you're wrong. If you can refute my example with the librarian above, you might have a point, but as has been said, unless somewhere it is said "BA" ics are affected by the red thirst, they are not - end of story.

SmackCakes:

What's the unit type of a Necron Destroyer?

Necron Destroyers are treated like jetbikes for the purposes of movement. They are not Jetbikes.

Likewise, an Independent Character is treated as part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back. It is not part of the squad.

You're confusing "treated as" or "counts as for the purpose of" with "is."

Two radically different things in the BRB.

So then you are all saying that Vulkans rules do not effect walkers because they do not have ATSKNF which they have to lose?

Most read Vulkan's rule as not require something to be lost in order to gain the bonus.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:So then you are all saying that Vulkans rules do not effect walkers because they do not have ATSKNF which they have to lose?

Uh... want to show me where Vulkan's rule in any way, shape, or form replaces or removes ATSKNF?

Everything in your army loses Combat Tactics.

Every flamer, heavy flamer, multimelta, and meltagun in your army counts as twin-linked.

Every thunder hammer counts as master-crafted.

Nothing is being swapped out or replaced. Your units that have Combat Tactics lose Combat Tactics. Your flamers, heavy flamers, meltaguns, and multimeltas become twin-linked. Your thunder hammers become master-crafted. It's exceedingly simple.

...where's the confusion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Most read Vulkan's rule as not require something to be lost in order to gain the bonus.

Because it doesn't.

"If you include He'stan, then all units in your army lose the Combat Tactics special rule. Instead, all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted, and all flamers, heavy flamer, meltaguns and multimeltas count as twin-linked."

Nowhere does it say that "all flamers on models that previously had the Combat Tactics special rule."

SaintHazard wrote:...where's the confusion?

The "Instead" at the beginning of the second sentence gets some folks to thinking that to be done in its stead, it must be a replacement.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:...where's the confusion?

The "Instead" at the beginning of the second sentence gets some folks to thinking that to be done in its stead, it must be a replacement.

/shrug

And there's no logical basis for that assumption.

And I'm not aiming these comments at you, I know you understand how it works, I'm aiming them at anyone who's confused by Vulkan's rule. Just FYI.

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:I do not see why people think the IC needs to have the Red Thirst rule for it to effect him. Most units don't have Liturgies of Blood but if they are in the same squad as someone who does then they are subject to its effects.

Because the rule says that it affects them.

It does not explicitly say that it effects other ICs who join the squad, it just says 'the whole squad' yet I'm certain that liturgies of blood does effect ICs.

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:The Red Thirst rule explicitly states it effects the 'entire squad'.

Which the IC is not part of.

YOU keep saying that! The RULES however do not. I would like if that was the case, but the rules say "An Intendant character is part of a unit" (page 48). The Rules say unit and squad are interchangeable terms (page 3). TRT says "the entire squad is treated as having the FC and fearless special rule". Here it does use the words 'treated as' because we are not talking about FC, we are talking about TRT.

The rules for transferring special rules say that rules do apply to ICs if the rule specifies.TRT is no less specific than liturgies of blood, it says the 'entire squad'.

The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

SmackCakes:

I really don't like quoting myself, but when you ignore the things that I say, it becomes necessary. Please pay attention. Earlier in this thread, I said this:

SaintHazard wrote:SmackCakes:

What's the unit type of a Necron Destroyer?

Necron Destroyers are treated like jetbikes for the purposes of movement. They are not Jetbikes.

Likewise, an Independent Character is treated as part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back. It is not part of the squad.

You're confusing "treated as" or "counts as for the purpose of" with "is."

Two radically different things in the BRB.

The rules do NOT say the IC is part of the squad. They say the IC COUNTS AS part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back.

For the purposes of special rules that affect the squad, and the squad only, the IC is NOT part of the squad - because the rules that specify what the IC is counted as part of the squad for do NOT include special rules, with the exception of the two (three?) universal special rules that affect both the squad and the attached IC.

You can't just ignore rules, or apply rules to situations where they normally do not apply, when it becomes convenient for you to do so.

I am sorry but yet again if you go back and read how USR's for IC and unit work it is only the ones marked with an * that are lost if either of the IC or unit does not have it.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I am sorry but yet again if you go back and read how USR's for IC and unit work it is only the ones marked with an * that are lost if either of the IC or unit does not have it.

Irrelevant anyway, because Red Thirst is not a USR. It's a Special Rule, but it's far from Universal.

@smack cakes

I'm stil waiting for you to refute my example. Also, notice how there are no rules saying that "both units get each others special abilities when an ic joins"? That's because thete aren't any. Show me where in the BRB it does, and ill concede defeat in this thread. On your logic, when my Marshal joins a terminator squad, every terminator confers leadership 10 to my army. Why? Because they inherited the rule from my Marshal. This is identical to the ridiculous argument you have presented.

SaintHazard wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I am sorry but yet again if you go back and read how USR's for IC and unit work it is only the ones marked with an * that are lost if either of the IC or unit does not have it.

Irrelevant anyway, because Red Thirst is not a USR. It's a Special Rule, but it's far from Universal.

Yes but in that section it specifcally states specail rules not, USRs.

Addtionally your question about BA libs joining a unit and does the unit gain his abilities to use his powers does not equate to this probelm. Being as it states you need to be a pysker (type of unit/charcater) to use them.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I am sorry but yet again if you go back and read how USR's for IC and unit work it is only the ones marked with an * that are lost if either of the IC or unit does not have it.

Irrelevant anyway, because Red Thirst is not a USR. It's a Special Rule, but it's far from Universal.

Yes but in that section it specifcally states specail rules not, USRs.

Addtionally your question about BA libs joining a unit and does the unit gain his abilities to use his powers does not equate to this probelm. Being as it states you need to be a pysker (type of unit/charcater) to use them.

Under the heading of "Universal Special Rules," yes.

Assuming that any rule can be transferred to an IC's squad is like saying, "Since my Chaplain has a 4+ invulnerable save from his Rosarius, and he's attached to these Assault Marines, all of the Assault Marines also get 4+ invulnerable saves."

Which is ridiculous.

SaintHazard wrote:

Assuming that any rule can be transferred to an IC's squad is like saying, "Since my Chaplain has a 4+ invulnerable save from his Rosarius, and he's attached to these Assault Marines, all of the Assault Marines also get 4+ invulnerable saves."

Which is ridiculous.

Which I've been saying for ages!!!!

SaintHazard wrote:SmackCakes:

I really don't like quoting myself, but when you ignore the things that I say, it becomes necessary. Please pay attention. Earlier in this thread...

I ignored you because I don't have the rules for necron destroyers and they are completely irrelevant, and you saying 'likewise' is just your opinion which is equally irrelevant.

The rules do NOT say the IC is part of the squad. They say the IC COUNTS AS part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back.

I quoted the rules word for word. Please give the page number where you are getting this from so I can read it myself.

You can't just ignore rules, or apply rules to situations where they normally do not apply, when it becomes convenient for you to do so.

I agree 100%, but how dare you insinuate that I was ever doing anything like that. I am simply here discussing the rules as written and trying to come up with a clear answer based on what the rules say.

You are the one who has already made up your mind what you want the rules to say, and are now trying to twist them to fit your ideas, not me. I personally think the rule needs further clarification for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Assuming that any rule can be transferred to an IC's squad is like saying, "Since my Chaplain has a 4+ invulnerable save from his Rosarius, and he's attached to these Assault Marines, all of the Assault Marines also get 4+ invulnerable saves."

Which is ridiculous.

Which I've been saying for ages!!!!

It's nothing like what we are talking about. The rules for Rosarius do not say 'the entire squad is effected'. The rules for TRT do say that.

And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

I can do that.

Apologies for the wholesale rules, at this point there's not much in the way of options.

Page 48:

"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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details)."

Emphasis mine.

Does the "Red Thirst" special rule say that it is conferred to the IC when the IC joins the squad with the rule?

No, it does not.

The rest of the section on Independent Characters is filled with bits that mention each of the IC's limitations while he/she is attached to a unit (such as shooting at the same target, assaulting with them, etc), but nothing explicitly says, "The Independent Character is now part of a unit, and shares their rules," or anything to that effect.

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

My opinion on your point about sharing rules is that it is a straw man argument. I agree with you in the examples you gave. But I don't see how they anything like TRT.

The red thirst does not say it effects ICs. It says it effects the entire squad. The same as liturgies of blood which I think everyone agrees... does effect ICs.

Whether or not "entire squad" cover ICs is unclear. You say it doesn't, I'm inclined to agree, but that is really just personal opinion. When I try to find rules to back up that statement I see none.

The thing that confuses me is why Snikrot would confer his Ambush bonus rule on an IC Warboss.

Both are of the same type of wording - "Snikrot's unit can move in from any table edge"; and "Thirst effects the unit".

I agree that the IC does not get furious charge, but gets fearless, but the other ruling on Snikrot feels similar.

Well when you consider that there isn't a blanket "blood angels" get the red thirst rule, and the codex states whether or not each seperate unit has the rule, I think that the intent is clear.

I've always played it that as long as the squad has it, any IC with that squad has it while the IC is with the squad. If the squad dies off or the IC changes squads, he loses it unless the squad he is moving to has it. Not sure if that is how it is meant to be, but that's how I play it, and no one that I've played against has said anything yet.

To add to the hate and discontent, however, with Blood Chalice, any unit within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest gets FnP and FC. If a squad member is 5" from the priest, but the IC attached to the squad is 7" from the priest, would the IC get the bonuses?

SaintHazard wrote:
Page 48:

"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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details)."

Emphasis mine.

Thanks, but I've already read the rules on Page 48. No where does it say what you said it says...

SaintHazzard wrote:They say the IC COUNTS AS part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back.

Where in that passage you dropped does it say 'counts as' or that it is limited to the things you say. That is what I want you to quote or I just have to assume you are making it up.

The rules do say point 2...

While an Independent character is part of a unit. He must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined unit moves and assaults at the speed of the slowest member

This clearly says that the IC is part or the unit and it is one unit (squad) of troops and IC combined. There is no 'counts as'

Could there be a difference between the regullar and pocket-sized BGB?

No, they are identical.

SaintHazard wrote:Page 48:

"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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details)."

In that case this is indeed RAW.

liam0404 wrote:Well when you consider that there isn't a blanket "blood angels" get the red thirst rule, and the codex states whether or not each seperate unit has the rule, I think that the intent is clear.

Right - but a Warboss/Ghaz doesn't have the Ambush rule (they don't even have infiltrate) - yet they can Ambush with Snikrot, apparently.

@HoverBoy
You mean it's RaW that the IC gets it? Or he doesn't get it?

WylieX wrote:To add to the hate and discontent, however, with Blood Chalice, any unit within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest gets FnP and FC. If a squad member is 5" from the priest, but the IC attached to the squad is 7" from the priest, would the IC get the bonuses?

I hope there is no hate and discontent

You make a very good point, which is like my liturgies of blood point. IC do frequently seem to count as part of a unit when a rule effects the whole unit. Saying this is any different is kind of a double standard.

FNP is not a special rule of the unit (like Red Thirst), it's a special rule conferred by specific circumstances (being within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest). It's a different scenario.

Also, I hate SmackCakes. He's the worst! I heard he eats children!

Magnalon wrote:@HoverBoy
You mean it's RaW that the IC gets it? Or he doesn't get it?

I mean't thats what is written in the book, i am actually waiting for the professional rules monkeys to resolve this.

Yea - we're talking about Thirst here, which is a Blood Angel's only army rule - not a wargear item like a chalice.

Right - but a Warboss/Ghaz doesn't have the Ambush rule (they don't even have infiltrate) - yet they can Ambush with Snikrot, apparently.

Ambush: Snikot's mastery of guerilla tactics is legendary. If the owning player chooses, Snikot and his unit many be held in Reserve. When Snikot and his unit becomes avaliable from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge.

Snikot alone got the special rule, not the unit.

Not entirely a different scenario because the chalice gives said rule to the unit. I was going off the wording of the rule, not from where the rule was acquired. Both of the rules state the the unit/squad get FC and either Fearless or FnP, so I don't see how they would differ personally (unless squad and unit mean seperate things, such as squad meaning just the original squad and unit meaning squad + IC which it very well might be...)

This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

~! What about Painboyz "He conferrs FNP to his unit".

Wait, What?

Are you saying those are the objections.

Because I am saying that IC's join squads, and that rules that effect entire squads effect all models in the squad which the IC is one of them.

ChrisCP wrote:~! What about Painboyz "He conferrs FNP to his unit".

Painboys also are not ICs.

But if they were, their rules specifically state they give FNP to their unit, or, if they were ICs, to the unit to which they were attached.

Oops, didn't mean that, what I was saying is the rules for a Painboy say 'conferres to the unit, so if an IC was attached then no FNP for them. In keeping with this line of reasoning.

The only reason I can see for an IC to not succumb to the Red Thirst like the rest of the squad is if they didn't have ATSKNF as then it can't be used in the replacement effect.

ChrisCP wrote:Oops, didn't mean that, what I was saying is the rules for a Painboy say 'conferres to the unit, so if an IC was attached then no FNP for them. In keeping with this line of reasoning.

The only reason I can see for an IC to not succumb to the Red Thirst like the rest of the squad is if they didn't have ATSKNF as then it can't be used in the replacement effect.

Oddly enough that is my point exactly. There are two conditions that need to be meet. First, is the IC part of a squad that rolled a one on TRT? Second, does he have ATSKNF?

Yes, Yes, and we rolled '1' - Succumb!!!!

SmackCakes wrote:This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

I think the key to this argument is the difference between the terms "unit" and "squad".

1. ICs are not affected by TRT because the rule specifically states that the "squad" benefits. The squad is the group of units in the "assault squad" or "tactical squad" etc. The IC can join them and the "unit" would then consist of a squad, and an IC.

2. ICs are NOT part of the "squad", but rather the "unit".

3. I guess RaW the ICs attached to squads with liturgies of blood do not get the bonus, unless they themselves have the liturgies of blood special rule. However, things like the blood chalice confer their abilities to "units" and not "squads"

By the logic that "squads" and "units" are the same, a 9 man squad of tac marines could split up into combat squads if an IC joined them before deployment, as he is part of their "squad". This is not the case, he is part of their "unit", and therefore does not count towards the "squad's" model count.

Rephistorch wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

I think the key to this argument is the difference between the terms "unit" and "squad".

1. ICs are not affected by TRT because the rule specifically states that the "squad" benefits. The squad is the group of units in the "assault squad" or "tactical squad" etc. The IC can join them and the "unit" would then consist of a squad, and an IC.

2. ICs are NOT part of the "squad", but rather the "unit".

3. I guess RaW the ICs attached to squads with liturgies of blood do not get the bonus, unless they themselves have the liturgies of blood special rule. However, things like the blood chalice confer their abilities to "units" and not "squads"

By the logic that "squads" and "units" are the same, a 9 man squad of tac marines could split up into combat squads if an IC joined them before deployment, as he is part of their "squad". This is not the case, he is part of their "unit", and therefore does not count towards the "squad's" model count.

I think I know where you are trying to come up with the terminology for your example, the only problem is that they say that squads are units. It is on page 3 of the BRB. " Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads... In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together in units."

So to say squads and units are not the same is in direct contradiction of the RAW.

Addtionally, that is the last reference I can find without going over every page in full detail, where it refers to squads.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I think I know where you are trying to come up with the terminology for your example, the only problem is that they say that squads are units. It is on page 3 of the BRB. " Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads... In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together in units."

So to say squads and units are not the same is in direct contradiction of the RAW.

Addtionally, that is the last reference I can find without going over every page in full detail, where it refers to squads.

The reference on page does say that, but it is more of a fluff reference than a rules reference, as they are explaining how groups of models are referred to as "units". The part you left out was "... band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups". This merely a reference to tactics used on the battlefield and is only there to help people understand what a unit represents. The only thing this paragraph says rules wise is that "We represent this by grouping models together in units". Therefore group of models = a unit. Not a squad, not a team, but a unit. Bold added for emphasis to show that they are basing the earlier statements on fluffy wording that people would understand.

Although, this is only my interpretation of RaW. I think GW does use the terms interchangeably (in some instances), thus causing these kinds of issues.

Technically I think this argument can be looked at from another standpoint as well in the special character rules. I know this rule is argued fairly often here on the boards, but an independent character in a unit is still his own unit, he just counts as being part of the unit he is joined with for movement, shooting, and assault purposes. It is not actually part of the "squad", he has merely joined the squad. Being that it has merely joined another unit, you roll for the unit it has joined, but not the independent character.

Even ignoring the previous point, it specifically says in the independent characters section that "When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character..." This was argued earlier in this thread, and I tend to agree with it. The special character does not have the special rule TRT, and TRT does not say that it is granted to ICs that have joined the unit.

This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

One is Wargear that gives a USR to everyone in the unit (including attached IC's) so long as he is alive, one is a Special Rule that only members of the unit have (of which ICs are not part of) no matter what.

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

If what we've been saying so far is true (and I believe it is), ICs attached to a squad with a Painboy would NOT get FNP.

SaintHazard wrote:

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

If what we've been saying so far is true (and I believe it is), ICs attached to a squad with a Painboy would NOT get FNP.

They do. The Wargear says everyone in the unit gets FnP. That includes ICs.

An IC attached to a unit with TRT doesn't have TRT, so cannot be affected by it directly.

The difference is TRT doesn't say "Everyone in the unit gains TRT" like the doc tools say "Everyone in the unti gets FnP".

No, unfotunately, IC cannot benefit from the Red Thirst. ICs usually give the squad they join special rules, it's rarely the other way round.

I'm pretty sure SmackCakes's entire argument was revolving around TRT saying exactly that.

I don't have my BA codex on me right now, what's the exact wording of TRT?

SaintHazard wrote:I'm pretty sure SmackCakes's entire argument was revolving around TRT saying exactly that.

I don't have my BA codex on me right now, what's the exact wording of TRT?

After forces have been deployed... yaddayaddayadda ... the entire squad is treated as having the [USR1] and [USR2] special rules instead of [Special Rule X] for the duration of the game.

Like my GW Attack Panda Proof Quote?

In short, it says the squad has the USR. The IC is NOT PART OF THE SQUAD AND DOES NOT HAVE TRT SPECIAL RULE, he is only attached to the squad, he isn't actually part of the unit. If he was, he could never leave.

Gwar! wrote:The Wargear says everyone in the unit gets FnP. That includes ICs.

Gwar! wrote:After forces have been deployed... yaddayaddayadda ... the entire squad is treated as having the [USR1] and [USR2] special rules instead of [Special Rule X] for the duration of the game.

In short, it says the squad has the USR. The IC is NOT PART OF THE SQUAD AND DOES NOT HAVE TRT SPECIAL RULE, he is only attached to the squad, he isn't actually part of the unit. If he was, he could never leave.

Emphasis mine.

So if I'm reading this right, the distinction is "in the unit" versus "part of the unit," right?

The distinction is that an IC attached to a Unit does not get the unit's special rules.

A Nobz Mob doesn't have the FnP special rule, one model has a wargear item that gives all models in the unit FnP. He dies, FnP is gone. All members of the unit get to benefit (and by extension, Attached ICs, because the Wargear Says so.

An Assault Squad has The Red Thirst as an Inherent Special Rule, nothing short of wiping out the unit can remove that special rule from the unit. An IC attached to the unit may be part of the unit for the purposes of movement and shooting and being shot at, but he is not actually PART of the unit (that is, the unit that is bought and deployed at the begining of the game). The IC doesn't have the Red Thirst, and cannot benefit directly from it.

It's like saying that because a SM Chapter Master joined to a unit of Scouts has an Orbital Bombardment, everyone in the unit gets one. Or that joining a Terminator Captain to unit of Legion of the Damned suddenly means the Captain has a 2++ save.

That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

Alright. So let me see if I got this...

The Red Thirst: "...one or more members of the squad...the entire squad is treated...." This is essentially a self-buff.

Liturgies of Blood: "...and all members of any squad he has joined..."

Honour of the Chapter: "He, and all members of a squad he has joined..."

Blood Chalice: "All friendly units..."

The above three all specifically mention that others are included, not just this one particular individual model/unit/entity/etc. etc.

So since no ICs have TRT, and it is a self thing only, they can never get it. Meanwhile, the other three are all group buffs.

Amazing how when you put it in WoW terminology it becomes so much simpler....

Oooo you started the topic again without me :-(

I afraid it's not that simple, it's really nothing at all like a chapter master giving scouts orbital bombardment.

The exact wording is...

After forces have been deployed, but before any scout moves are taken and the first turn begins, roll a D6 for each unit in your army that has this special rule (including units you have left in reserve). On a score of a 1, one or more members of the squad have succumbed to the Red Thirst and the the entire squad is treated as having the furious charge and Fearless special rules instead of ATSKNF special rule for the duration of the game.

Red Thirst is not an ability the squad has. It is an event that can befall Blood Angels. If one member of the unit succumbs then the rule says the entire squad is treated as having FC and Fearless.

My understanding of it is that Combat Squads have to roll separately for it, because they are a new unit with that rule. Another combat squad containing an IC is also classed as a single new unit at deployment. You test for TRT and the squad fails. That means one or members (but not necessaries all) have succumbed to the Red Thirst. The rules say that if that happens then the 'entire squad' which includes members who didn't succumb, and now an IC are treated as having FC and Fearless and they lose ATSKNF.

For contrast the exact wording of Liturgies of Blood is:

On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed roles to hit. Models in a Death Company can also re-roll failed rolls to wound

This rule does not specify that other ICs joined to squads are allowed re-rolls, but we know they are because they are members of the unit. Similarly TRT says that if one member succumbs then his entire unit is subject to the rules for TRT.

SmackCakes wrote:Red Thirst is not an ability the squad has.

Errrm... Yes, it is?

It's listed under "Blood Angels Special Rules".

It is an event that can befall Blood Angel

Ok, once more, with feeling this time:

FLUFF ≠ RULES
......................^^^ That symbol means "not equal to".
It is that simple. It doesn't get any more simpler than that. What is it with YMDC these days? Every other thread has at least 2 or 3 people arguing fluff as rules. It's getting highly aggravating.

However, this thread is well and truly done. The RaW is completely clear. Anyone arguing for it affecting the IC is doing so by trying to use Fluff as rules. The argument is going around in circles now and no more good can come of this.

Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

HoverBoy wrote:Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

Gwar eats Fluff bunnies for breakfast.

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

What I think you're pointing to about units sharing "special rules" and having to specify IC's is talking about USRs. The Red Thirst isn't a USR. It is a special rule on a unit that grants two USRs to the entire unit on a roll of 1. The unit is being affected by a special rule that they have. Once they have been affected (after the roll), then they get two USRs. Nothing is conferred one way or the other. The debate is about whether or not TRT is specific enough to affect IC's.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Apostle Pat wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

Gwar eats Fluff bunnies for breakfast.

Best comment evah.

puma713 wrote:

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

Wow, I can't even read the rest of the thread because of this crap you keep spouting. What you're pointing to about units sharing "special rules" and having to specify IC's is talking about USRs. The Red Thirst isn't a USR. It is a special rule on a unit that grants two USRs to the entire unit on a roll of 1. The unit is being affected by a special rule that they have. Once they have been affected (after the roll), then they get two USRs. Nothing is conferred one way or the other. The debate is about whether or not TRT is specific enough to affect IC's.

Gwar! and others say that IC's aren't a part of the unit. I'll bet I can find a post or two where he contradicts himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

The red thirst affects the "SQUAD" that has the special ability. The IC can not be part of the squad, it is merely attached to the squad and has special rules defined in the BRB on page 48. It does not benefit from the special rules of the unit he has joined (red thirst IS a special rule, it's listed as such in the unit profile). The IC gains fearless because the fearless USR confers its ability to attached ICs. That's all that matters.

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

Edit: On a funny side note, while sifting through Gwar!'s 625 pages of posts, I recall him correcting others for typing in all caps because it is likened to yelling and considered rude. Yet you can't find a page with a couple posts, at least, without him yelling at someone. I mean, look at this thread alone.

BRB IC Section wrote:While an Independent character is part of a unit. He must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined unit oves and assaults at the speed of the slowest member

BA Dex wrote:After forces have been deployed, but before any scout moves are taken and the first turn begins, roll a D6 for each unit in your army that has this special rule (including units you have left in reserve). On a score of a 1, one or more members of the squad have succumbed to the Red Thirst and the the entire squad is treated as having the furious charge and Fearless special rules instead of ATSKNF special rule for the duration of the game.

This is the most salient point. There has been nothing presented in this thread to refute these passages.

Since squad and unit are used interchangably, the IC will benefit from the special rules, without needing to possess TRT himself. The rules are not conferred on him as would be refuted by:

Page 48 BRB wrote: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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details)."

This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

puma713 wrote:No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Uh. Yes it does, no he's not, it doesn't because that's not what he's saying, it doesn't because that's not what we're saying, no I can't because it's not relevant, respectively.

Pay attention, and learn to read. A unit's special rule is different from a special rule conferred to a unit via a piece of wargear. That's the point. A special rule conferred to a unit by a piece of wargear (e.g. the Dok's Tools conferring FNP to the Painboy's unit) is shared by the Independent Character attached to said unit. On the other hand, the special rule that a unit has regardless of other circumstances (such as ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and, in this case, Red Thirst) is NOT shared by the IC that joins the unit.

I'll put it this way for the sake of simplicity: Assault Marines have the rule "Red Thirst." A Chaplain is attached to a unit of Assault Marines by deploying in coherency with them. The Chaplain does not have the rule "Red Thirst." Because he is attached to Assault Marines, does he now have "Red Thirst?" He does not.

Another example: Space Marine Chapter Masters have the rule "Orbital Bombardment." If I attach the Chapter Master to a unit of Tactical Marines, does every single one of the Tactical Marines now have the rule "Orbital Bombardment?"

Can I field a unit of 10 Tactical Marines in coherency with a Chapter Master, and use eleven Orbital Bombardments on you? 'Cause that'd be pretty nice.

Oh, I can't?

Well, then, your Chaplain doesn't have Red Thirst. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:
FLUFF ≠ RULES
......................^^^ Tha...

Yeah before you go blowing as gasket Gwar, I said nothing about 'fluff'. What I said is an event is different to an ability. Being shot at is an event, taking a break test is an event, being fearless is an ability, all are part of the rules, they have nothing to do with fluff.

If you like I can shout in large capital letters for you "events/abilities ≠ fluff" but then I'd just be annoying.

TRT is a test models take some at the start of the game. The rules say if they fail then their entire squad is treated as Fearless and having FC for the duration of the game.

TRT plays no further part in the game, it is not an ability that can be used over an over. Any BA squads who fail the test essentially loose that rule.

Actually, Fearless is a Universal Special Rule, not an ability. Don't mix terms, it only confuses the issue.

Once again, TRT gives its benefits to the unit, not the model possessing it. So while an attached IC would not have TRT, nor keep the benefits if he leaves (either voluntarily or if the models possessing TRT are killed) he is still part of the unit and as such benefits.

Remember, TRT is not conferred on him, but that is irrelevent since a model with TRT gives the benefits to his unit.

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Uh. Yes it does, no he's not, it doesn't because that's not what he's saying, it doesn't because that's not what we're saying, no I can't because it's not relevant, respectively.

Pay attention, and learn to read. A unit's special rule is different from a special rule conferred to a unit via a piece of wargear. That's the point. A special rule conferred to a unit by a piece of wargear (e.g. the Dok's Tools conferring FNP to the Painboy's unit) is shared by the Independent Character attached to said unit. On the other hand, the special rule that a unit has regardless of other circumstances (such as ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and, in this case, Red Thirst) is NOT shared by the IC that joins the unit.

That depends. And this debate is exactly the reason that the INAT council changed their ruling about Shrike and Snikrot. Because the unit is being affected by a product of a special rule and not a special rule itself. The IC is not having The Red Thirst conferred upon him, but is being affected by it because he is a part of the unit that is being affected.

And before you spout something off about the INAT and how worthless it is, or whatever you're going to say, whether you like it or not, people (tournaments included, one of which is on the GW circuit and therefore sanctioned by GW) use it.

SaintHazard wrote:I'll put it this way for the sake of simplicity: Assault Marines have the rule "Red Thirst." A Chaplain is attached to a unit of Assault Marines by deploying in coherency with them. The Chaplain does not have the rule "Red Thirst." Because he is attached to Assault Marines, does he now have "Red Thirst?" He does not.

And I'll rebuttal for the sake of simplicity. He does not NEED the Red Thirst. The conditions of the Red Thirst are not such that the character needs to have it. In fact, the Red Thirst doesn't even make mention of itself as a rule (except to point out who needs to roll). It simply says if the unit (of which the IC is a part of - no parsing the definition here, remember?) rolls a 1, it succumbs and has the two USRs. TRT need not be conferred. In fact, it can't be conferred. But you're thinking the IC needs to have the TRT rule, which it doesn't. It simply needs to be a part of the unit, which it is.

SaintHazard wrote:Another example: Space Marine Chapter Masters have the rule "Orbital Bombardment." If I attach the Chapter Master to a unit of Tactical Marines, does every single one of the Tactical Marines now have the rule "Orbital Bombardment?"

Can I field a unit of 10 Tactical Marines in coherency with a Chapter Master, and use eleven Orbital Bombardments on you? 'Cause that'd be pretty nice.

Oh, I can't?

Well, then, your Chaplain doesn't have Red Thirst. Sorry.

Lol, you're almost as condescending as Gwar!. Not quite, though - I understand, you're working on it Your point above has no bearing whatsoever on the argument. Does "Orbital Bombardment" say anything about the entire unit? No. I think it's pretty clear that the entire argument has sailed right over your head. Maybe you should sit down, have a glass of water? Or maybe we should write this in crayon for you. The point is that the rule states that the entire unit is affected. The IC doesn't have to have the rule conferred to them. Being a part of the unit makes them susceptible to a rule that affects "the entire unit". It is a rule's affect that is being debated, not the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:Once again, TRT gives its benefits to the unit, not the model possessing it. So while an attached IC would not have TRT, nor keep the benefits if he leaves (either voluntarily or if the models possessing TRT are killed) he is still part of the unit and as such benefits.

Remember, TRT is not conferred on him, but that is irrelevent since a model with TRT gives the benefits to his unit.

Exactly. People keep debating the fact that the IC doesn't have TRT and can't have it conferred upon him. He doesn't need it conferred upon him - he is simply being affected by it. Almost like a psychic power. If a psychic power affects a unit, it does not need to mention also the fact that it affects IC's. Why? Because he is a part of the unit.

Dracos wrote:
This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

Honestly, if my opponent tried to play this way, I would argue that since the independent character does not have the red thirst, the unit he has joined no longer has it either. Infiltrators can't infiltrate with an IC, units can't succumb to the red thirst with an IC as they lose their special ability when the IC joins.

The problem is that your assuming the rules are telling you everything you can't do, rather than what you can do. The rules specifically state, "Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit’s special rules are not conferred
upon the character..."

The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)". Fearless does this. Dante's special rules (precision strike, etc) do this for any attached units; however, the red thirst does not!

So if he leaves the unit, why do the rules given only the the unit still apply? Or why would they not?

This comes up with many "buffs" that affect a unit.

Rephistorch wrote:

Dracos wrote:
This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

Honestly, if my opponent tried to play this way, I would argue that since the independent character does not have the red thirst, the unit he has joined no longer has it either. Infiltrators can't infiltrate with an IC, units can't succumb to the red thirst with an IC as they lose their special ability when the IC joins.

The problem is that your assuming the rules are telling you everything you can't do, rather than what you can do. The rules specifically state, "Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit’s special rules are not conferred
upon the character..."

The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)". Fearless does this. Dante's special rules (precision strike, etc) do this for any attached units; however, the red thirst does not!

Holy god.

Let's walk through this slowly.

Page 48:

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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result. . .

Everyone keeps focusing on this. Who gives two feths if the TRT can be conferred upon the character and vice versa. This has no bearing whatsoever on what is going on. TRT is not getting conferred to a character. It doesn't need to be. The character doesn't need to have TRT to be affected by it. TRT is simply a dice roll. It is a dice roll that, on a 1, confers 2 USRs to the unit. The independant character, being a part of the unit, is being affected by the dice roll. He doesn't have to have TRT. He doesn't have to have TRT conferred upon him. He is simply being affected because he is a part of the unit.

puma713 wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

Edit: On a funny side note, while sifting through Gwar!'s 625 pages of posts, I recall him correcting others for typing in all caps because it is likened to yelling and considered rude. Yet you can't find a page with a couple posts, at least, without him yelling at someone. I mean, look at this thread alone.

What is written in the book is not debatable. It is either in the book or it isn't. I'm not basing this answer off of what I think it means. I'm basing it off of what it exactly says. RaI is definitely != RaW. I am not trying to offend you or tell you that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. I am merely stating that the rules say it doesn't work that way.

I will admit Gwar! seems to have gotten slightly upset. I'm sure he's frustrated that the rules say that it doesn't effect an attached IC, but a lot of people say that the IC should just automagically get the red thirst affects just because it's attached to the unit. Not only that, his opponents, rather than quoting rules, are saying that "because it doesn't say that we can't, means that we can!". The rules don't say I can't take your IC and throw it out the window after you tell me it has the red thirst, but that doesn't mean that I can (while following the rules of the game), or that I should (following the unwritten rules of not being a ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

...snip...

Everyone keeps focusing on this. Who gives two feths if the TRT can be conferred upon the character and vice versa. This has no bearing whatsoever on what is going on. TRT is not getting conferred to a character. It doesn't need to be. The character doesn't need to have TRT to be affected by it. TRT is simply a dice roll. It is a dice roll that, on a 1, confers 2 USRs to the unit. The independant character, being a part of the unit, is being affected by the dice roll. He doesn't have to have TRT. He doesn't have to have TRT conferred upon him. He is simply being affected because he is a part of the unit.

The IC is still his own unit while joined to the other unit. The rules state only that he must do specific things while attached to the unit, like maintain coherency, shooting rules, etc. It does not say that he can benefit from the unit's special rules, even if the benefits are conferred without him "having" the special rule. If the rule does not say it affects ICs it doesn't. Period. That's why we are focusing on that line.

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

What is written in the book is not debatable. It is either in the book or it isn't. I'm not basing this answer off of what I think it means. I'm basing it off of what it exactly says. RaI is definitely != RaW. I am not trying to offend you or tell you that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. I am merely stating that the rules say it doesn't work that way.

Obviously you haven't read the Marneus Calgar debates. The choosing between two weapons. The exact same sentence is being read completley differently by the two sides of the argument. It's the reason there's a debate at all.

Rehpistorch wrote:I will admit Gwar! seems to have gotten slightly upset. I'm sure he's frustrated that the rules say that it doesn't effect an attached IC, but a lot of people say that the IC should just automagically get the red thirst affects just because it's attached to the unit. Not only that, his opponents, rather than quoting rules, are saying that "because it doesn't say that we can't, means that we can!".

That's not true either. They're just not open to listening to other points-of-view. It's the way Gwar! debates. He's like an ork: he's right because he believes he's right and there's no two ways about it. Unfortunately, grown-up debates don't actually work that way and if you want to get anywhere, you have to uncross your arms, take the plugs out of your ears and have a conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rephistorch wrote:

The IC is still his own unit while joined to the other unit. The rules state only that he must do specific things while attached to the unit, like maintain coherency, shooting rules, etc. It does not say that he can benefit from the unit's special rules, even if the benefits are conferred without him "having" the special rule. If the rule does not say it affects ICs it doesn't. Period. That's why we are focusing on that line.

Not quite. Think about Nartheciums. They affect IC's even though they don't mention it because they are a piece of wargear. This is the same thing. It is a rule affecting the entire unit, not needing everyone attached to have the same rule. The rule doesn't need to be conferred onto the IC for the IC to be affected, just like the IC doesn't have to carry the Narthecium for him to be affected. It doesn't say that IC's can be affected by other model's wargear does it? Like you said, it is specific about what affects them.

And the rules mentioned below, in SmackCakes post.

Rephistorch wrote:The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)".

Actually this is debatable... The book just says that the rule specify, but most rules like Liturgies of blood and Dante's rule you mentioned do not specifically state that they effect ICs.

SmackCakes wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)".

Actually this is debatable... The book just says that the rule specify, but most rules like Liturgies of blood and Dante's rule you mentioned do not specifically state that they effect ICs.

Because those rules do not need to, because the Chaplain is joined to the other IC as well as the unit...

-Sigh- I give up. Have fun, I am gonna not bother with this thread anymore. You all know the Rules, you all know what they say. To claim that TRT affects ICs is completely incorrect. If you want to believe otherwise, I give up trying to help you.

This thread has been reported in mass quantities. I am shuitting down until I've had a looksy.