Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?
Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?
YOu can take unit upgrades unless disallowed by ther formation, or a requirement fo the frmation cannot be met if you do so (For example - if you take a Wave serpent in the Aspect host formaiton, you have not followed the requirement that all units have an exarch)
Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit, thus the unit "Thunderwold Cavalry" from formation Dath Pack is still a Thunderwold Cavalry unit from formation Death Pack
Note thast some tournaments, such as ITC, have HOUSERULES that dont allow formations benefits to tick over, however this is an explicit rules change. ETC for example follows the printed rules and allows this mixing
I see guy responding to every single question about IC's...
And always see him write ITC is houserule and ETC is follow printed. Haha. Both have lots of houserules and opposite opinion. This no different.
Just want say that he is one of most vocal people that represents one side of an argument.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care either way. I play ETC but can see how people see other way. Just thought I'd give you heads up, OP. A lot of people have interpret rules in opposite way and will tell you that you can't. Especially on your side of sea.
20p thread arguing this topic. No matter how much nosferatu loves to say things have been proven and that to not allow it is a 'houserule', as you can see, nothing has been resolved.
Bottom line, just speak to your opponent about whether you want things like this to work or not. You and your opponent should be playing on equal footing.
Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?
Depends on the wording of the rule.
If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.
If it references unit in the formation= maybe
If it references the unit because at least one model has the rule, or the unit+attached character(like is referenced in the harlequin codex for the rule skystride), or any unit containing at least one model with this rule- or something similar= yes
The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.
So short answer, is no.
Long answer is, some tournaments have house rules that allow this (see ETC tournament format)
If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.
Still waiting on a rule stating this on numerous requests. Otherwise, this is only an assumption.
The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.
This statement is based on the assumption that a unit referenced by name in a rule only applies to models listed on its datasheet. There has been zero rules presented to support this statement. It also Ignores the fact that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the rules do not get mixed any more than the Wargear, the IC would not be allowed to be considered as anything more or less than another model in the "Thunderwolf Cavalry" unit than any Thunderwolf model when a rule affects the unit as a whole.
Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.
If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.
Still waiting on a rule stating this on numerous requests. Otherwise, this is only an assumption.
The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.
This statement is based on the assumption that a unit referenced by name in a rule only applies to models listed on its datasheet. There has been zero rules presented to support this statement. It also Ignores the fact that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the rules do not get mixed any more than the Wargear, the IC would not be allowed to be considered as anything more or less than another model in the "Thunderwolf Cavalry" unit than any Thunderwolf model when a rule affects the unit as a whole.
Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.
The rules for ICs joining units and special rules has you look at the IC and the unit separately when you determine if the rules can affect one another. When you do so the IC is not found on the 'thunderwolf cavalry' sheet in any form when you are looking at the IC special rules, and as this rule in particular refers to that NAME the IC cannot benefit. The rules as written state this plainly. The IC and Unit are considered separately, which is not claiming they are separate units, when it comes to special rules as is stated in the section of the rules regarding ICs and special rules. When doing so there is no way to look at the IC rules on the Thunderwolf Cavalry datasheet, and any claim otherwise is simply not true. When looking at the IC rules to see if it is a thunderwolf cavalry the only answer is no, otherwise the IC would be found on the thunderwolf cavalry datasheet. Yes it references the name of the unit, but that is the name of the army list entry for the datasheet. You reference that datasheet for their rules, and the IC datasheet for its rules- even when joined. As the rules tell you to do so. When doing so, the IC is not a thunderwolf cavalry.
Unless you can show permission to not look at the IC rules for determining what rules affect it when it is joined to an unit.
Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.
I agree the datasheet is not the unit itself on the tabletop, and I agree it is where you look for the rules and characteristics. The IC rules call this out as well when they have you look at the IC rules(datasheet) separate from the unit rules(different datasheet).
As this particular rule references the name of a datasheet, as opposed to using the words "unit" which have specific rules connotations it changes how the rule interacts with an IC due to how the rules for ICs and Units work and determining sharing of special rules.
blaktoof wrote: The rules for ICs joining units and special rules has you look at the IC and the unit separately when you determine if the rules can affect one another. When you do so the IC is not found on the 'thunderwolf cavalry' sheet in any form when you are looking at the IC special rules, and as this rule in particular refers to that NAME the IC cannot benefit. The rules as written state this plainly. The IC and Unit are considered separately, which is not claiming they are separate units, when it comes to special rules as is stated in the section of the rules regarding ICs and special rules. When doing so there is no way to look at the IC rules on the Thunderwolf Cavalry datasheet, and any claim otherwise is simply not true. When looking at the IC rules to see if it is a thunderwolf cavalry the only answer is no, otherwise the IC would be found on the thunderwolf cavalry datasheet. Yes it references the name of the unit, but that is the name of the army list entry for the datasheet. You reference that datasheet for their rules, and the IC datasheet for its rules- even when joined. As the rules tell you to do so. When doing so, the IC is not a thunderwolf cavalry.
Unless you can show permission to not look at the IC rules for determining what rules affect it when it is joined to an unit.
We can look at the rules. Nothing actually prevents you from doing so. In fact, we have to as some rules pass their affectt across, such as Stubborn or Infiltrate.
What you are doing here is two-fold, separating the unit in to two parts, which we are not instructed to do, and assuming a position of "not in the unit because not in the datasheet". This is counter to instructions already given. The rules do not transfer, but we are not told to separate the two any more than that.
Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.
I agree the datasheet is not the unit itself on the tabletop, and I agree it is where you look for the rules and characteristics. The IC rules call this out as well when they have you look at the IC rules(datasheet) separate from the unit rules(different datasheet).
As this particular rule references the name of a datasheet, as opposed to using the words "unit" which have specific rules connotations it changes how the rule interacts with an IC due to how the rules for ICs and Units work and determining sharing of special rules.
Incorrect. The name listed on the datasheet is the "unit name", per the datasheet legend for every single version released. It is never referenced as the datasheet name. This has been pointed out every single time you bring this up and you have not been able to disprove it.
When a rule references a name, it is referring to an entity. If that named entity is only ever listed as a "unit name", than it can only be referring to a UNIT. If there is a question as to what entity type the name is, ala Deathmarks, than we are not to assume it is a unit, but models only, unless otherwise directed. That is part is the rules not transferring.
We all know the viewpoint of everyone here on the issue. There is already a 20p dedication to that.
There is nothing new said here. Every single point that both sides has written here has already been discussed. Lets not repeat the exact same thing in an endless merry-go-round as an petty excuse to get the last word in. Unless there is something new, lets be bigger people than that...
Rasko wrote: We all know the viewpoint of everyone here on the issue. There is already a 20p dedication to that.
There is nothing new said here. Every single point that both sides has written here has already been discussed. Lets not repeat the exact same thing in an endless merry-go-round as an petty excuse to get the last word in. Unless there is something new, lets be bigger people than that...
Considering that's what I've asked Blacktoof for, as he's never actually provided support for his claims, I would say that the potential for something new here. We've only asked a dozen times for it.
That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.
blaktoof wrote: That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.
But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".
Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.
blaktoof wrote: That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.
But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".
Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.
blaktoof wrote: That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.
But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".
Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.
You should check out the OED of hypocrisy.
Saying one thing and doing another, or not following one's own declared practices.
I have provided rule quotes to support my position numerous times. The fact that they are not accepted is immaterial to the fact that they were provided.
You have provided nothing on this after a dozen requests and more to support this position you keep espousing as above. If you have a case, a rules quote or at least a proper reference is needed.
Inthe USR for Independant Characters, the BRB says:
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 does it say in the Space Wolves Deathpack formation special rule that the rule is conferred on ICs who join a unit ?
Inthe USR for Independant Characters, the BRB says:
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 does it say in the Space Wolves Deathpack formation special rule that the rule is conferred on ICs who join a unit ?
NO
NO, it's as simple as that
It is not as simple as that, which is why there exists a really long discussion about it. But that discussion has been going on (without an agreement) long enough.
Can't we just refrain from restarting this discussion each and every time? Let's just stick to a summary:
There's no consens on that topic, even the major tournaments aren't in agreement as to how to read this rule. ETC says "yes", ITC says "no" - discuss it with the TO or your opponent.
karlosovic wrote: It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.
1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't
It's not that simple since there is a difference between inheriting a rule and benefiting from a rule. The IC will never inherit the rule, but is it able to benefit from it? And from there on the discussion devolves into Oxford Dictionaries, name-calling and Stubborn'ness (I hope you guys appreciate that one). Just trust me on that one: It is not that simple.
karlosovic wrote: It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.
1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't
You missed how it says it does, though. A common mistake.
It specifies as in Stubborn. Stubborn does not actually specify.
Stubborn provides a benefit to a unit which fulfills its qualifiers. IC counts as a member of said unit. IC benefits as a result. Special rule is not passed off.
karlosovic wrote: It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.
1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't
You missed how it says it does, though. A common mistake.
It specifies as in Stubborn. Stubborn does not actually specify.
Stubborn provides a benefit to a unit which fulfills its qualifiers. IC counts as a member of said unit. IC benefits as a result. Special rule is not passed off.
I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't and you're dead wrong
BRB says:
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
This rule doesn't say that, so it doesn't apply to the IC
karlosovic wrote: I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't and you're dead wrong
BRB says:
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
This rule doesn't say that, so it doesn't apply to the IC
And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone. It is but one of two requirements for Stubborn to benefit the unit in question. And in this case, the IC would not be the "at least one model", now would it?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....
No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....
No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't
BRB wrote: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
The point you're trying to argue is that the "Special Rules" section not only rules how Special Rules are confered but also how their effect / benefit is shared - even though there is another section to the IC rules that explains how to deal with effects, including those created by Special Rules (Blind, for example). That is what "the other side" disagrees with, since the rule only speaks of confering Special Rules themself, and the counter-argument to that is to not use the Dictionary definition of "to confer" but to use context ("How is Stubborn written?") to determine what "to confer" means, or to consider the effect of a Special Rule as part of the rule instead of as an "Ongoing Effect".
Since both sides insist that their definition of "to confer" is correct, there's really no reason to argue anymore - either you use one or the other, there's not going to be a middle ground or definitive answer that both sides will accept outside of GW stepping up and saying what they had in mind writing this.
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
Now, because hit rolls are worked out on an individual model basis, a unit that had been joined by an IC could make use of the option to re-roll 1s (with the IC obviously missing out on that benefit).
They could not use the other option because the IC is prohibited from doing so under the standard game rules if the unit performed a Run action in the previous shooting phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....
No, they're not. They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't
So, theyre not a "part of the unit for all rules purposes"? Odd, I could have sworn there was a rule stating that....
No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred. Nothing about benefit
Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words, or wil you just continue to insult others?
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.
So we come to the crux of your argument, and if you tell me you're not taking the piss...... well I simply don't believe you
The operative word is "unit", and you're acting like it doesn't ever mean (even slightly) different things.
It's clear to everyone what it means, and how these rules should be used
But, if you want to be TFG, I can't save you.
Thank God i don't play against you... what a tedious experience that must be for your poor opponents
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're just going to totally ignore the bit where it says
Unless specified in the rule itself..., the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character,"
because GW uses the same word to describe an entry in the FOC AND a collective entity during the game
Well if that's not a prime example of a Rules Lawyering, .... I don't know what is
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a final word.... I think people who want to be THIS pedantic about rules are badly suited to Games Workshop games.
It's common knowledge that GW takes a fairly lackadaisical approach to the production of rules, and offers little to no after sales service in this (or, really, any) department.
I'm not sure which games systems have super tight tournament level rule sets, but I'm sure they exist, and I feel you'd be more at home in that sort of community
Using the yellow circle of friendship when people violate the rules of this forum isnt "snitching". Keep up
So can you explain the difference between "confer" and "benefit"? Or is that "rules lawyering" to use the actual words in th rule, and not the ones you jsut conveniently make up?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....
No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't
The actual rule states: "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...". So as far as any rule looking at the unit as a whole, the IC is considered a normal member of the unit. He doesn't actually get any of the rules like he was in the datasheet per the rule about IC Special Rules, but nothing separates the IC and unit in to being two identifiable entities when a rule addresses the unit as a whole.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not have the effect of 'For Glory, For Russ" extended onto him.
But, does the IC even need the benefit of 'For Glory, For Russ'?
I came across a rule in the BRB that allows an IC (who follows the rules for characters) to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules which grant units the ability to charge in situations where they are normally disallowed from charging.
Spoiler:
Some units are disallowed from charging. Common reasons a unit is not allowed to declare a charge include:
• The unit is already locked in close combat.
• The unit Ran in the Shooting phase.
Spoiler:
For Glory, For Russ: any units from the Deathpack . . . can . . . Run and still be able to charge in the same turn
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.
Spoiler:
If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.
The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
col_impact wrote: The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
The rule against Charging after Running affect the unit. So, either the IC didn't Run, and so did not prevent his unit from Charging afterward, or a rule that allows a unit to Run and Charge is bypassing this restriction against the unit.
You are not allowed to consider the IC and the unit separate in either case.
col_impact wrote: The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
The rule against Charging after Running affect the unit. So, either the IC didn't Run, and so did not prevent his unit from Charging afterward, or a rule that allows a unit to Run and Charge is bypassing this restriction against the unit.
You are not allowed to consider the IC and the unit separate in either case.
I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.
col_impact wrote: I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.
You did not quote the relevant portion of the Deathpack formation rule which states it excludes the IC from the Deathpack unit. The unit runs, the unit is permitted to ignore the restriction against Charging after Running. You are adding needless complications.
col_impact wrote: I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.
You did not quote the relevant portion of the Deathpack formation rule which states it excludes the IC from the Deathpack unit. The unit runs, the unit is permitted to ignore the restriction against Charging after Running. You are adding needless complications.
Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.
col_impact wrote: Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.
What are you talking about? It specifies it just as much as Stubborn does. Just because it doesn't use the exact same phrase doesn't mean it isn't as specific.
col_impact wrote: Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.
What are you talking about? It specifies it just as much as Stubborn does. Just because it doesn't use the exact same phrase doesn't mean it isn't as specific.
Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
Spoiler:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
Spoiler:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.
So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.
The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone. It just is a very liberal in the qualifications as to a unit being able to get it based on the number of models in the unit. It does not actually say anything is given to anyone. "Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".
So, again, quote both and prove that one is not as specific as the other. Off hand, I bet the Formation rule is actually more specific in its target.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).
Spoiler:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.
So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.
The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone. It just is a very liberal in the qualifications as to a unit being able to get it based on the number of models in the unit. It does not actually say anything is given to anyone. "Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".
So, again, quote both and prove that one is not as specific as the other. Off hand, I bet the Formation rule is actually more specific in its target.
The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.
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
This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit. So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)
Then we encounter Special Rules
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.
This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule
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 there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn
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.
Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)
Stubborn Units that contain at least one model.....
And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.
Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.
The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.
So let me break it down for you....
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.
|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|
The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument
Secondly...
Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".
nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words
nosferatu1001 wrote: ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred. Nothing about benefit
Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things
As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.
Independant Character Special Rule ...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Stubborn Units that contain at least one model.....
They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"
This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:
Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule. The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack" As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit The exception isn't there, so you can't do it
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.
col_impact wrote: The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.
Waiting . . .
I made a case denying yours works, do not think that you can just shift it back because you said so, so I will place this under "cannot and therefore will not".
col_impact wrote: The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.
Waiting . . .
I made a case denying yours works, do not think that you can just shift it back because you said so, so I will place this under "cannot and therefore will not".
I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.
Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.
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
This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit.
So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)
Then we encounter Special Rules
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.
This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule
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 there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules
A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn
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.
Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.
Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.
The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.
So let me break it down for you....
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.
|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|
The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument
Secondly...
Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".
nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words
nosferatu1001 wrote: ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit
Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things
As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.
Independant Character Special Rule
...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"
This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:
Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule.
The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack"
As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit
The exception isn't there, so you can't do it
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.
Waiting . . .
QFT
Considering you based you entire argument on a unjustified assumption and insertion of your own wording into the rule as highlighted and emboldened above, you have negated the rest of your argument.
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
This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit.
So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)
That part is an assumption that it is only talking about Core Rules. It does not state "Core" Rules, it states "all" rules.
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.
This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule
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 there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules
A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn
Special Rules are rules that models possess as applied by their datasheets, as noted in the Special Rules introduction you quoted above, and that is the distinction between them. This restriction about conferring the rules comes almost right after the rule about joining a unit. Almost like it was stopping people from taking the Special Rules on the unit's datasheet and virtually placing them on the IC's and vice versa right after they were talking about being in the unit, Look Out Sir!, and Heroic Morale.
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.
Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)
I know, but you are still going to go and do it anyway, too. Ironic.
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.
Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.
The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.
So let me break it down for you....
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.
|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|
The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument
Yes, the "who" is "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests", and what it does is "ignore any negative Leadership modifiers". This is a point I have brought about numerous times. They focus on the first clause of the "who" while ignoring the second, and use that first clause as the beginning, end, and only means by which special rules are "conferred" between units and ICs, all while ignoring what the whole rule of Stubborn actually states.
The highlighted portion you quoted me quoting is pointing out that it is not a literal case of transferring anything, rule OR benefit. This line is just establishing one of the conditions and specifically the numbers in the unit involved required to have the rule. The "at least one model with this special rule" just establishes a minimum requirement of one model, and this could be a regular unit member or the IC. In this specific case, the IC without Stubborn, is only found in "the unit" portion of the rule and expecting other models in the unit to carry the rule. The unit, including the IC, still has to fulfill ALL its requirements in order to be affected, including taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
Therefore, requiring this one specific phrase, and only this phrase, is disingenuous without also requiring the unit to be taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.
Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".
nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words
nosferatu1001 wrote: ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit
Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things
And this is where it REALLY goes off the rails. Col_impact is more fond of trying to make his claim have weight by saying he sticks to RAW (which I have demonstrated he most definitely does not) while ignoring the words he actually quotes. One time he actually quoted one sentence which said one thing, and said it was proof positive of the exact opposite.
karlosovic wrote: As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.
Independant Character Special Rule
...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....
They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"
This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will
If "confer" is not an operative word, then what is it? A status word like "is"? No, it is an action verb and used as an action verb, therefore it is quite "operative". "Confer" is not synonymous with "at least one model" without a literal statement making it such. Any such assertion otherwise is either seeing what you want to see or sophistry.
And if it doesn't matter how it is said, then why can we not take the example of Stubborn and apply it in other places. Col_impact and others are stuck on the specific phrases, not us. Stubborn places conditions on a unit and provides a benefit to the unit (which the IC counts as part of) when those conditions are met. Any other purview is self-delusion at best, deliberately ignoring the actual Written Rules at worst.
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:
Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule.
The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack"
As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit
The exception isn't there, so you can't do it
You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".
The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".
Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.
Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.
Already addressed numerous times in other threads which you cannot refute without going in to HYWPI. Try again.
And this is where it REALLY goes off the rails. Col_impact is more fond of trying to make his claim have weight by saying he sticks to RAW (which I have demonstrated he most definitely does not) while ignoring the words he actually quotes. One time he actually quoted one sentence which said one thing, and said it was proof positive of the exact opposite.
col_impact wrote: I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.
Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.
Already addressed numerous times in other threads which you cannot refute without going in to HYWPI. Try again.
Again pointing to nothing but hot air.
Burden is on you buddy. The IC Special Rules rule is preventing 'For Glory, For Russ' from affecting the IC until you can prove otherwise.
You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".
The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".
Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.
None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?
It hasn't been asked and being a noob, but in this formation can you swap the 1x wolf lord for a named wolf lord like Harald, or cans? There still a wolf lord.
Sn33R wrote: It hasn't been asked and being a noob, but in this formation can you swap the 1x wolf lord for a named wolf lord like Harald, or cans? There still a wolf lord.
Nope. The formation references a specific ALE. If it allows you to use other wolf lords it uses a footnote and lists the named wolf lords you can use in place of the wolf lord in the formation.
You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".
The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".
Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.
None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?
It specifies as much as the Stubborn rule specifies.
Actively compare the two and use the words that are written as the words are actually presented. Stubborn does not actually state anything about conferring anything between IC and unit. Stubborn confers its benefits to the unit that meets its qualifications which includes the IC only as part of that unit. So does the Deathpack rule.
What you believe to be the cause cannot be the cause as it does not work as a written instruction to that effect.
And that is why I went over those semantics, Karlosovic.
You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".
The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".
Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.
None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?
It specifies as much as the Stubborn rule specifies.
Actively compare the two and use the words that are written as the words are actually presented. Stubborn does not actually state anything about conferring anything between IC and unit. Stubborn confers its benefits to the unit that meets its qualifications which includes the IC only as part of that unit. So does the Deathpack rule.
What you believe to be the cause cannot be the cause as it does not work as a written instruction to that effect.
And that is why I went over those semantics, Karlosovic.
Incorrect.
In the Stubborn rule itself is a clause which logically extends the effect of the rule to attached models.
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
That clause logically extends the effect of the rule to attached models (which includes the IC).
That clause is in the rule itself.
The Deathpack rule has no such clause or anything that would extend the effect to models attached to the unit.
And as we know per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not confer automatically to the IC.
The special rule must specifically confer the special rule to the IC with something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
So far you have been relying on rules that are not in the Deathpack rule itself such as the "an IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
But the IC Special Rules rule requires that there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
So you are utterly failing to pay the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule.
However it is very easy to pay the costs of the IC Special Rules rule when the rules support it.
Consider Acute Senses and Stubborn.
Spoiler:
Acute Senses
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit arrives on a random table edge (due to Outflank, or other special rules), then you can re-roll to see which table edge they arrive from.
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.
It's easy to spot the clause that extends the benefit to attached models (ie the IC).
The same pattern is easily spotted in these special rules.
Spoiler:
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
Why did GW write a special rule that says an IC only has a unit's special rule conferred on him if the special rule specifically says so - if it was just going to be negated by your "when an IC joins a unit he he counts as the unit for ALL THE RULES EVEN RULES THAT SAY HE DOESN'T" ?
Kinda makes that whole Special Rule a bit of a misprint, does it?
And if the Rune Priest instead joined a unit of Blood Claws, does he also now get Rage? Because a unit of Blood Claws has Rage, and he's now part of the unit
Brother Ramses wrote: Considering you based you entire argument on a unjustified assumption and insertion of your own wording into the rule as highlighted and emboldened above, you have negated the rest of your argument.
No, you're wrong
Read the section:
General Principles - Basic Versus Advanced
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules
So the basic rule is that a character counts as part of the unit
The advanced rule is a special rules that says he only gets other special rules if the rule says so
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.
Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"
Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.
Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer
karlosovic wrote: Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer
But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.
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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.
Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"
Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.
Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer
Ah, apologies, I thought you were engaged in a rules debate, in a written form. It isnt "lawyering" to use the actual written words, as opposed to what you made up out of whole cloth
If youre rally (laughably) going down the "it isnt defined" route, then neither is confer, so your argument also falls apart
The truth of it is, your argument CANNOT be RAW, as you are not using the rules as written, instead you are using the rules as altered by karlsovic to suit their argument
That's just using an adjective, it doesn't define "Benefit" as some key word for rules purposes, and certainly not in a way that somehow creates a specific inclusion for ICs joining a unit from the Deathpack formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.
Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"
Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.
Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer
Ah, apologies, I thought you were engaged in a rules debate, in a written form. It isnt "lawyering" to use the actual written words, as opposed to what you made up out of whole cloth
If youre rally (laughably) going down the "it isnt defined" route, then neither is confer, so your argument also falls apart
The truth of it is, your argument CANNOT be RAW, as you are not using the rules as written, instead you are using the rules as altered by karlsovic to suit their argument
Rubbish, every line of it
a)It IS rules lawyering to try and create some false exception by pointing at some arbitrary word, and saying it doesn't count because one sentence has been written using a few different words than another sentence.
b)I'm not changing words except to paraphrase and explain things in a way that I'd hoped you might understand (wasted effort, it seems)
c)I SAID "confer" was not a specialy defined word! That's my whole point! You're the one trying to create some artificial difference between a rule being "conferred"and a rule being "beneficial". Yeh - they're different words, but not in a meaningful way considering the context in which they're used, and no where in the book does it define what they mean when they use those specific words. They're just various words that GW used when they wrote the book, not some magical loophole you can EXPLOIT to give Rune Priests some random special rule you want to give them. He can ONLY "benefit" from a rule if it has been applied to him, or "conferred" onto him. How else do you suggest the rule can benefit from him?
My neighbour has plenty of money. He hasn't conferred any of his wealth on me, but I guess I "benefit" in an abstract way in that he has no need to rob me. That's about the only variety of "benefit" you're going to get from a rule that wasn't "conferred"
And mate, my argument is EXACTLY RAW. I quoted every single rule of any relevence and explained in detail how they all fit together
Your agument consists of
a) "IC counts as unit for ALLRULES, so it doesn't matter that the special rule says he only gets a special rule if the rule specifies - COZ ALL DA RULZ!"
b) Yeh but "confer" and "benefit" are different words and that's relevent in some non-explained way"
c) I'm on da RAW side
You're being obtuse, either deliberately or through ignorance, and it's very annoying
karlosovic wrote: Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer
But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.
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.
Actually, it is important to note that things like "For Glory, For Russ", Skyhammer's "First the Fire, then the Blade", and Talon Strike Force's "... On Target" are not ongoing effects.
Ongoing Effects are clearly defined as a lasting effect.
IC 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.
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.
While these are 'effects' of a special rule, in that they are what the rule does, they do not fall under the Ongoing Effects category.
"Any unit within 12" of the Wolf Lord at the start of the shooting phase, can run and charge in the same turn." That is not an ongoing effect.
Much like how 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 in the unit gets +1A until the end of the phase") is not an Ongoing Effect.
nekooni wrote: But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.
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.
Reading this again you're actually even further off track than I'd been giving you all credit for.
I hope this isn't the only spot you can point to for your "benefit" word, because this section isn't even about the application of special rules.
This section describes what happens when a unit is the target of an effect. The "target". Someone else cast a spell on them or fired a shot on them! It's got nothing to do with Special Rules, or when/how/to whom they are conferred!
And for the record - the operative words in this section are "target" and "effect" - not "benefit".
The word "benefit" is still irrelevent because that's just one suggestion among a couple of ways you might incidentally feel about those effects. It doesn't matter if the effect is beneficial, harmful, or indifferent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh snap! You beat me to it
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you haven't answered my question about other USRs, and ICs joining other units.
If my Wolf Lord joins a unit of Blood Claws, by your arguement he should get Rage, correct?
And any Inquisitor I attach to my army will gain the Counter Attack special rule when he joins one of my Space Wolf units, too, I assume
No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up
Its a very simple difference between a rule explicitly stating the UNIT gains it, and USRs on a datasheet which are given to the models ON the datasheet.
Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up
An IC who joins a unit becomes part of the unit for ALLRULES purposes. The BLood Claws unit has that rule, so the IC who joins it has that rule by your arguement - keep up yourself.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.
Didn't insult you this time champ - keep up.
The only annoying thing here is that you keep claiming things that are inherently false, and you won't listen to reason
Rasko wrote: [Actually, it is important to note that things like "For Glory, For Russ", Skyhammer's "First the Fire, then the Blade", and Talon Strike Force's "... On Target" are not ongoing effects.
Ongoing Effects are clearly defined as a lasting effect.
While these are 'effects' of a special rule, in that they are what the rule does, they do not fall under the Ongoing Effects category.
"Any unit within 12" of the Wolf Lord at the start of the shooting phase, can run and charge in the same turn." That is not an ongoing effect.
Much like how 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 in the unit gets +1A until the end of the phase") is not an Ongoing Effect.
But how exactly do you identify whether or not an effect is an "Ongoing Effect" or not? And how is an effect that keeps going until the end of a phase not an ongoing effect? Counter-Attack itself is a Special Rule, sure - but if "a unit with at least one model with this SR that gets charged" (trigger condition), "every model with the Counter-Attack SR" (who is affected?) "gets +1A until the end of the phase" (the effect that is active for a specified time frame).
Now the exact same logic can be applied to both Blind AND e.g. "... On Target".
"Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule" (trigger condition) must take an
Initiative test at the end of the current phase."If the Initiative test is failed," (trigger condition #2) "all
models in the unit" (who is affected?) "are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their
next turn." (the effect that is active for a specified time frame)
Spoiler:
Please note I've removed some lines from the Blind rule that - at least in my opinion - have no influence on the discussion at all. You can find the full rule below, quoted sections are highlighted.
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.
First the Fire, then the Blade from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force:
"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve" (both trigger condition and timeframe), "the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force"(who is affected) "have the Relentless special rule." (the effect, timeframe is given in the beginning of the sentence).
Spoiler:
I've cut the Assault Squad part from the rule to keep it simple, the entire sentence of course is:
On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn.
And Shock Assault from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force:
"Tactical Squads from this formation" (who?) can Run and then shoot (what?) on the same turn they disembark from their Drop Pods (trigger condition & timeframe)
And ... On Target from the Shadowstrike Kill Team:
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" (who) can charge (what?) on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike (trigger condition & timeframe)
And last but certainly not least: Stubborn from the BRB:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" (trigger condition), "they" (who? in this case: "the unit") ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.(what?)
Stubborns effect doesn't have a timeframe attached to it - it is simply "now" - therefore it wouldn't fall under the ongoing effects. All the others have a timeframe and are ongoing.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up
An IC who joins a unit becomes part of the unit for ALLRULES purposes. The BLood Claws unit has that rule, so the IC who joins it has that rule by your arguement - keep up yourself.
Oops, giess you cannot read the datasheets then. WHich specify they are the rules given to the models in the unit listed. So the MODELS have the rule, not the unit. Try again, "champ"
And is different to a rule such as first the fire, death pack etc whcih appl to the UNIT and give the UNIT a benefit. Such as charging and running. You know, those things that UNITS do in the actual written, non-karlosovic40k rules?
karlosovic wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.
Didn't insult you this time champ - keep up.
The only annoying thing here is that you keep claiming things that are inherently false, and you won't listen to reason
No, I wont listen to your made up out of whole cloth gak. That isnt "not listening to reason", thats "having a good idea what the rle actually says, as opposed to the rubbish you keep on claiming is RAW"
nekooni wrote: But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.
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.
Reading this again you're actually even further off track than I'd been giving you all credit for.
I hope this isn't the only spot you can point to for your "benefit" word, because this section isn't even about the application of special rules.
This section describes what happens when a unit is the target of an effect. The "target". Someone else cast a spell on them or fired a shot on them! It's got nothing to do with Special Rules, or when/how/to whom they are conferred!
And for the record - the operative words in this section are "target" and "effect" - not "benefit".
The word "benefit" is still irrelevent because that's just one suggestion among a couple of ways you might incidentally feel about those effects. It doesn't matter if the effect is beneficial, harmful, or indifferent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh snap! You beat me to it
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you haven't answered my question about other USRs, and ICs joining other units.
If my Wolf Lord joins a unit of Blood Claws, by your arguement he should get Rage, correct?
And any Inquisitor I attach to my army will gain the Counter Attack special rule when he joins one of my Space Wolf units, too, I assume
Afterall, "all rules"
Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.
So even if an IC that joins the unit is part of the unit for all intents and purposes, he will never, ever be a Blood Claw, Swift Claw, or Sky Claw.
My problem is that there are two rules of how IC's are handled:
1) The more generic one of "for all rules purposes"
2) The more specific one of "special rules do not confer unless specified to do so"
They don't really work well together in many cases and cause weird situations such as after deep strike where the unit has the permission to charge, and the IC just tags along.
I would not allow special rules to be "conferred", "applied" etc unless they really specified that.
Brother Ramses wrote: Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.
Oops, I appologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?
That still only negates one specific example though. There was another one with it, not to mention a boat load of more structured arguement that is unanswered
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, I wont listen to your made up out of whole cloth gak. That isnt "not listening to reason", thats "having a good idea what the rle actually says, as opposed to the rubbish you keep on claiming is RAW"
Direct rules quotes are not "claims of RAW", and now you're becoming quite offensive. You should try to follow the forum rules, please
While you're at it, try to find something in the rules to refute my arguments other than just calling me a liar.... it's less passionate, but makes for a more solid case
Brother Ramses wrote: Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.
Oops, I appologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?
That still only negates one specific example though. There was another one with it, not to mention a boat load of more structured arguement that is unanswered
Karlosivic - your argument was refuted however. Because your argument relies on the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word. You then claim that doesn't matter, as that is "rules lawyering" (in a rules discussion thread, who'd have thought?) but csnnot actually answer the refutation.
nekooni wrote: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808 pretty much covers your argument I think, otherwise please point me to your argument again and I'll try to respond to that specifically.
nekooni wrote: And Shock Assault from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force:
"Tactical Squads from this formation" (who?) can Run and then shoot (what?) on the same turn they disembark from their Drop Pods (trigger condition & timeframe)
And ... On Target from the Shadowstrike Kill Team:
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" (who) can charge (what?) on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike (trigger condition & timeframe)
And last but certainly not least: Stubborn from the BRB:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" (trigger condition), "they" (who? in this case: "the unit") ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.(what?)
Stubborns effect doesn't have a timeframe attached to it - it is simply "now" - therefore it wouldn't fall under the ongoing effects. All the others have a timeframe and are ongoing.
Ok, I can see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your decision that "on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" is considered a "timeframe" but "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" is simply "now". It's a single game-phase exemption from one of the core game rules, so it's instantaneous. The rules for Blind are considered an ongoing effect because it lasts until the end of the affected unit's next turn, which could potentially endure through 3 player turns (if the effect happened as an overwatched shot).
While I stand by my interpretation of that wording, I will agree that it's less than Earth-shattering in its clarity
Luckily for the question at hand, it has absolutely no bearing on our current topic - because duration of an effect (or even what counts as an effect) is not in question.
The simple fact is, there is a very specific rule that states
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
So we've established a clear rule that an IC does not gain/benefit/have-conferred/inherit (or any other word someone might introduce) special rules from a "Unit" unless that rule says otherwise
So.... who has the rule, and does it specify an allowance for extras?
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
The clear answer is that - "units from the Deathpack" have the rule
What are the "units from the Deathpack?
1 Wolf Lord
1 unit of Grey Hunters
1 unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry
Is Rune priest in the formation? No
Therefore he does not have the rule (inherently)
But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!
So.......does the special rule say so?
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so
So, to conclude.....
NO, he can't have the rule,
(and it's got nothing to do with durations)
Automatically Appended Next Post: While I was drafting a structured argement, this guy posted something
nosferatu1001 wrote: Karlosivic - your argument was refuted however. Because your argument relies on the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word. You then claim that doesn't matter, as that is "rules lawyering" (in a rules discussion thread, who'd have thought?) but csnnot actually answer the refutation.
Post when you can.
First of all, please spell/grammar check. It gets tiring trying to decipher your badly written posts
Secondly, ......... what?
WTF are you talking about "confer doesn't mean confer" ?
And what "refutation" are you suggesting I didn't answer?
The only "refutations" I've seen from you amount basically to "liar liar, pants on fire" without any argument, fact, or (heaven forbid) rules quotation to back it up
Please stop with your insulting suggestions that I'm a liar and try to address the actual points I have presented with something amounting to sense, and preferably with some reference to the actual rules
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word
Wait, what ?!?! *YOU* are the guy that keeps trying to introduce the word "benefit", not me
No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important. WHen it is. You then use other words in place of confer, with a different meaning, that coincidentally support your stance
I would love to know in which grammar checker you found "?!?!" in. PLease enlighten us.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important. WHen it is. You then use other words in place of confer, with a different meaning, that coincidentally support your stance
I would love to know in which grammar checker you found "?!?!" in. PLease enlighten us.
Or not.
Actually the combined exclamation and question mark is a way of writing a deprecated punctuation mark called an "interrobang" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang
Realistically, that was a petty argument even before I provided an actual reference Karma
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important.
The actual word "confer" isn't important, as I've explained several times. The way they've used it is important
The actual word isn't important, because the same rule where they use the word points to another rule that doesn't use the word (or the word "benefit" that you love so much)
Everything else we've been over before (actually we've been over that too but you insist on trying to make a distinction between these non-operative words)
The fact is - the English language provides room to say the same thing in various ways, not using the same words, but meaning the same thing. Unless a word is specifically defined as having a particular meaning for the scope of a document, that word does not become a "key word" that you can use to lawyer your own meanings. The Warhammer 40,000 rulebook clearly indicates that certain words have a defined meaning within those rules, and provides a clear format for identifying words that have such a defined meaning.
The words you are pointing to do not have that distinction. Find some that do. Then tie those words to a rule that is NOT overruled elsewhere by a more specific rule, and you might just find yourself on the way to building a case
karlosovic wrote: Ok, I can see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your decision that "on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" is considered a "timeframe" but "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" is simply "now". It's a single game-phase exemption from one of the core game rules, so it's instantaneous. The rules for Blind are considered an ongoing effect because it lasts until the end of the affected unit's next turn, which could potentially endure through 3 player turns (if the effect happened as an overwatched shot).
"on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" means one full turn as duration. Stubborn only produces an effect for a single situation - I have to take a pinning test - and is immediately resolved, there's no duration to that effect. The Special Rules themself are obviously constantly "active". If you'd remove the Assault Marines from the table and let them arrive from DS again, they would gain another turn of that effect.
Luckily for the question at hand, it has absolutely no bearing on our current topic - because duration of an effect (or even what counts as an effect) is not in question.
But that's the ONE thing that is important! Either we're talking about Ongoing Effects - which are clearly shared with ICs present when the effect "begins" - or we're talking about Special Rules themself, which unless specificallys noted are NOT shared. So the question is whether or not the rule you quote even applies - because it clearly doesn't for Ongoing Effects created by Special Rules - BOTH examples for Ongoing Effects are Special Rules themself!
Therefore he does not have the rule (inherently)
But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?
No, unless specified. But he can be affected by said Special Rule, if it creates an Ongoing Effect. FGFRs effect lasts throughout the Shooting Phase, so does have a duration and qualifies - to me - as an Ongoing Effect.
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!
So.......does the special rule say so?
That being said - the entirety of the basic "must be specified" argument is already on really wobbly feet since the rule says ICs must be specifically called out - kinda like Overwatch / Snapshots - yet the example given (Stubborn) simply doesn't. I'd expect it to say "the unit and any attached ICs present". It's a pretty badly written rule, which is why we are discussing this topic.
To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".
---
Wait, what ?!?! *YOU* are the guy that keeps trying to introduce the word "benefit", not me
Even though you're not addressing me I should be able to shed some light on that one:
"To confer" means that you give something to someone, in this case a Special Rule. This is the only meaning out of eg the OED of "to confer" that fits the context. There have been MANY claims that "to confer" would mean "to benefit from" those special rules.
nekooni wrote: To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".
I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".
karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!
So.......does the special rule say so?
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so.... Bugger, no, it doesn't say so
I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?
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 lists two requirements for its target: it carries at least one model with the rule, and taking a Morale check or Pinning Test.
Stubborn then states, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers". Who are "they"? The unit which has completed their requirements. No fancy Rosetta stone/secret decoder rings needed, just a simple requirement for the unit and for the unit to be affected with no notes of exception.
So, then with that in mind, let us review the rule in question:
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
So, a list of requirements for the unit to complete, then provides the unit which has completed their requirements to receive the benefits. No exceptions noted other than in the initial requirements.
Sounds like it is just as specific as Stubborn, so IC is included.
EnTyme wrote:I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".
Well part of it is that the the "Ongoing Effects" is only part of what it is talking about.
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.
This portion here is pointing out that the IC is to be considered part of the unit when it receives an effect, including special rules. It does not even note that this effect be a long term one. The rest of the paragraph then talks about the effect continuing on even after the IC and unit are separated. In order for the effect to continue on after they separate, it must first be included in the effect in the first place.
karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!
So.......does the special rule say so?
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so
I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?
Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.
So the rule minus the supplemental example is this . . .
"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."
What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?
Answer: "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.
karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?
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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character
Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!
So.......does the special rule say so?
For Glory, For Russ!: The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so
I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?
Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.
So the rule minus the supplemental example is this . . .
"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."
What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?
Answer: "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.
It is an example, but does not encompass all possible ways that a unit special rule can be given to an IC. Stubborn is listed in the BRB under what is basically the generic Special Rules most commonly encountered. It cannot take into account all rules in all codices that are unique to specific units that do not use one of the generic Special Rules.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.
Just because it is in parentheses does not mean you get to ignore it. Parentheses do not remove context, they just set it aside, especially if it is outside the sentence's structure. You used to rely on Stubborn so much, but once I proved it doesn't say what you think it says, you seek to ignore it. You have to obey the grammar of the sentences.
col_impact wrote: The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.
And as I demonstrated in the portion you clipped out For Glory, For Russ satisfies the conditions just as much as Stubborn does. Why clip it out? Too much to handle?
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.
Just because it is in parentheses does not mean you get to ignore it. Parentheses do not remove context, they just set it aside, especially if it is outside the sentence's structure. You used to rely on Stubborn so much, but once I proved it doesn't say what you think it says, you seek to ignore it. You have to obey the grammar of the sentences.
If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.
The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.
col_impact wrote: If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.
If it is a supplement to the rule, it is still part of the rule.
col_impact wrote: The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.
And yet, you still ignore everything else, including the language and grammar of the rule itself AND its example. Hypocrite.
col_impact wrote: If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.
If it is a supplement to the rule, it is still part of the rule.
col_impact wrote: The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.
And yet, you still ignore everything else, including the language and grammar of the rule itself AND its example. Hypocrite.
Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.
One of the things you are required to do is to treat the information in the parentheses of the IC Special Rules rule as supplemental information and the stuff that is outside the parentheses as the rule.
This is the rule . . .
"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."
This is the supplemental information . . .
"(as in Stubborn)"
So the BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa.
col_impact wrote: Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.
I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.
col_impact wrote: Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.
I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.
As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.
My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.
col_impact wrote: Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.
I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.
As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.
My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.
Only by using your personal views on grammar, definitions, and use of the language. If your group shares the same views on the same, great for you.
col_impact wrote: Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.
I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.
As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.
My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.
Only by using your personal views on grammar, definitions, and use of the language. If your group shares the same views on the same, great for you.
My views on grammar, definitions, language, and logic are standard.
You are the one who violated basic grammar by overturning the IC Special Rules with an example in parentheses to make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts what the rule says.
You are also the one who does not adhere to the plainly stated requirement to provide something "specified in the rule itself" in order to have a unit's special rules confer to the IC.
If your group doesn't care about the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and actually following rules, then good for you, because you are freely abusing all of those.
col_impact wrote: My views on grammar, definitions, language, and logic are standard.
Says the one who said lines in parentheses do not matter, and other rules cannot be used to define the rule that activates them.
col_impact wrote: You are the one who violated basic grammar by overturning the IC Special Rules with an example in parentheses to make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts what the rule says.
Then if I am so bizarre and unstandard in my understanding of grammar, than you could have actually taken my analysis of the Stubborn rule and disproved it. Instead, you choose to dodge it, ignore it, and in the end, not actually address it at all.
col_impact wrote: You are also the one who does not adhere to the plainly stated requirement to provide something "specified in the rule itself" in order to have a unit's special rules confer to the IC.
You're the one who ignores other rules to make it not work, especially the rule that allows this one to be invoked. Odd when you keep trying to use the IC Special Rules section to redefine the language of Stubborn on several occasions.
col_impact wrote: If your group doesn't care about the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and actually following rules, then good for you, because you are freely abusing all of those.
While I will not attribute a high level of English understanding on the order of Shakespeare to myself or my group, I am well aware of the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following rules. I am a computer technician. Do you know what happens when you work with computer hardware and software without a proper understanding and use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following the rules? Nothing or very unintended consequences. Sometimes I get lucky and it works better (engineers do not always communicate well), but I try not to rely on that.
Now, are you willing to actually address Stubborn using the actual words in the rule, with the actual grammar in the rule, with the actual language in the rule, and how its rules actually state how it transfers itself to all the models in the unit, no matter the source? Or will you do as you have done numerous times now and try to reset the discussion and accuse me of being an grammatical savage?
col_impact wrote: My views on grammar, definitions, language, and logic are standard.
Says the one who said lines in parentheses do not matter, and other rules cannot be used to define the rule that activates them.
col_impact wrote: You are the one who violated basic grammar by overturning the IC Special Rules with an example in parentheses to make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts what the rule says.
Then if I am so bizarre and unstandard in my understanding of grammar, than you could have actually taken my analysis of the Stubborn rule and disproved it. Instead, you choose to dodge it, ignore it, and in the end, not actually address it at all.
col_impact wrote: You are also the one who does not adhere to the plainly stated requirement to provide something "specified in the rule itself" in order to have a unit's special rules confer to the IC.
You're the one who ignores other rules to make it not work, especially the rule that allows this one to be invoked. Odd when you keep trying to use the IC Special Rules section to redefine the language of Stubborn on several occasions.
col_impact wrote: If your group doesn't care about the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and actually following rules, then good for you, because you are freely abusing all of those.
While I will not attribute a high level of English understanding on the order of Shakespeare to myself or my group, I am well aware of the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following rules. I am a computer technician. Do you know what happens when you work with computer hardware and software without a proper understanding and use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following the rules? Nothing or very unintended consequences. Sometimes I get lucky and it works better (engineers do not always communicate well), but I try not to rely on that.
Now, are you willing to actually address Stubborn using the actual words in the rule, with the actual grammar in the rule, with the actual language in the rule, and how its rules actually state how it transfers itself to all the models in the unit, no matter the source? Or will you do as you have done numerous times now and try to reset the discussion and accuse me of being an grammatical savage?
First things first.
I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.
But first things first.
Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.
nekooni wrote: To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".
I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".
But an unsaved wound is a model specific thing, and we're talking about effects on units. In a way, an unsaved wound IS an effect, sure - but it's clearly not targeting a unit.
If there is a rule that targets an entire unit and removes it from play, I'd totally agree with you that an IC joined to said unit will also be removed.
I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.
But first things first.
Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.
Same crap attempting to reset the argument without actually addressing the challenge while ignoring anything else said. Get a new routine.
I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.
But first things first.
Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.
Same crap attempting to reset the argument without actually addressing the challenge while ignoring anything else said. Get a new routine.
The "crap" that has been uncovered is your argument.
As I have shown, the BRB tells us plain as day that Stubborn confers. You have argued that Stubborn doesn't confer.
Also, the BRB makes a specific requirement that there be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC in order for the special rule to confer to the IC. You repeatedly ignore that plainly stated requirement in your argument.
Your argument is clearly out of bounds of RAW and can be filed away as a house rule.
nekooni wrote: To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".
I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".
But an unsaved wound is a model specific thing, and we're talking about effects on units. In a way, an unsaved wound IS an effect, sure - but it's clearly not targeting a unit.
If there is a rule that targets an entire unit and removes it from play, I'd totally agree with you that an IC joined to said unit will also be removed.
The Formation rules make it clear that rules on the Formation sheet are special rules that the units gain.
Spoiler:
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.
You actually have to prove that something is an effect applied from a unit's or model's special rule. Otherwise its a special rule of the unit that the unit has from being in the Formation (per the Formation rule).
Curse of the Wulfen is a good example of a special rule of the Wulfen that applies an effect on other units.
Spoiler:
All non-vehicle Space Wolves units within 6" of any units of Wulfen are affected by the Curse of the Wulfen.
How about everyone calms down a bit, especially Charistoph?
At this point I can't follow your posts anymore since all the twoof you are doing is throwing back and forth utterly content free verbal spears.
In order to return to a proper discussion would the two of you be so kind as to simply state your actual reasoning for your stance? Preferably without quoting each other - just state it in as few words and as concise as possible.
Or move it to a private discussion? At least restrict yourself to one thread, that should help immensely.
You actually have to prove that something is an effect applied from a unit's or model's special rule. Otherwise its a special rule of the unit that the unit has from being in the Formation (per the Formation rule).
Brother Ramses wrote: Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.
Oops, I apologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?
I just downloaded the FAQs, but then I figured I'd buy the new "Wulfen Edition" since that's the newest version of the codex, and it incorporates some new rules.
Anyway.... Rage is back to not specifying Bloodclaws only, so I guess the Wolf Guard Pack Leader will certainly get it, since he's part of the unit on the data sheet, but by the arguments in this thread, any IC who joins the unit will also gain Rage
Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.
They're the same thing. There's no difference.
What one earth would a "Unit's Special Rules" be, if not "Special Rules granted at the unit level?" It's the same thing.
I'm done with this argument. That's the first actual argument you've even tried to make in ages, and it was essentially the same as saying "His name is not Bob, Bob is just his name""
karlosovic wrote: Anyway.... Rage is back to not specifying Bloodclaws only, so I guess the Wolf Guard Pack Leader will certainly get it, since he's part of the unit on the data sheet, but by the arguments in this thread, any IC who joins the unit will also gain Rage
Not quite. Rage's benefits are not targeting the unit, only the model. Indeed, "unit" of any type is never mentioned in this whatsoever. Therefore, only if Rage is listed on the datasheet the model comes from will it affect the model. ICs of any type would not gain Rage just because they joined Blood Claws.
Note, this would be different if they had a unique rule that gave the unit Rage.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.
They're the same thing. There's no difference.
What one earth would a "Unit's Special Rules" be, if not "Special Rules granted at the unit level?" It's the same thing.
I'm done with this argument. That's the first actual argument you've even tried to make in ages, and it was essentially the same as saying "His name is not Bob, Bob is just his name""
Unit special rules are given to the models in the unit. Have you read what the section "Special Rules" is defined as on a data sheet?
You then have rules such as these which are given to the unit themselves
So do you understand the difference now? You may wish to check out the definition of Special Rules when listed on a data sheet before replying this time - for example page 46 of the space wolf codex, item 10. Note the distinction between models and units.
Malathrim wrote: Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?
Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?
Yes to both. The Grey Hunters are the requirement of the formation, and their codex entry let's them take a DT.
The UNIT that can run and charge is the TWC(if the Wold Lord is within 12"). ICs become part of that unit when they join it. It's still a TWC UNIT, and therefore can run and charge in the same turn. No rules need to be conferred, so nothing has to or can be questioned.
The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.
Sometimes I wish there was a way to prevent people who have reading comprehension challenges to participate in rules discussions.
I totally get it when some of these people come and ask a question such as the OP's, I just don't get it when those who understand even less come to answer it.
Grey Hunters are permitted to take transport in their codex entry, do you have any rules saying they can't because they're in a Deathpack formation ? Nope, so they work as stated.
Is the TWC any unit in the deathpack formation ? Yes, so they run and charge if they want to.
WRT clarifications, both ETC and ITC have random houserules that directly contradict RAW which are perfectly clear, they should never be mentioned in RAW discussions.
LinkXx wrote: The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.
But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.
So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.
LinkXx wrote: The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.
But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.
So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.
Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.
LinkXx wrote: The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.
But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.
So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.
Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.
Define the specific wording in stubborn that specifies "IC". Note I want you to actually SPECIFY the wording that SPECIFIES the IC. Note the word "specify", please use it correctly.
Happyjew wrote:col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?
We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?
nosferatu1001 wrote:Define the specific wording in stubborn that specifies "IC". Note I want you to actually SPECIFY the wording that SPECIFIES the IC. Note the word "specify", please use it correctly.
Do you seriously think his answer has changed after all this time? His last post was at least accurate, even if the sub-context behind it may have seemed to be accusatory.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?
We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?
The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to 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.
Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.
Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.
Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.
Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?
We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?
The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to 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.
Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.
Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.
Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.
Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.
Yes we know it has to specify. That is why you have been asked what the exact wording that specifies it confers is. If it is "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" than by your own admission, Counter Attack confers to an IC.
If someone examines your posts, on the other hand, they will find you making almost exclusively content-less posts. And I don't think you have every actually articulated a complete argument in any thread. Just quips or attempts to cast aspersions on others arguments.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?
We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?
The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to 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.
Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.
Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.
Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.
Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.
Yes we know it has to specify. That is why you have been asked what the exact wording that specifies it confers is. If it is "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" than by your own admission, Counter Attack confers to an IC.
There is nothing magic about that phrase. It is a scoping mechanism. When you actually read the Counter-Attack special rule (and I recommend you read the rule) you will note that it is not the clause that is actually scoping the ability. "Every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit" is the clause that is actually scoping the ability.
Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.
Here I will make it real easy for you . . .
Spoiler:
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.
What's the difference between that statement and this one?
Spoiler:
If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule 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.
Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?
Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.
Here I will make it real easy for you . . .
Spoiler:
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.
What's the difference between that statement and this one?
Spoiler:
If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule 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.
Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?
Well that's one easy question: Because GW sucks at writing rules.
No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").
If you have an IC with CA join a regular unit without CA, it will be "a unit with CA", but only the IC will benefit - and it is also "a unit which contains at least one model with CA".
nosferatu1001 wrote: It would be great if he could ever answer this question with specific wording. Col has ducked this every time.
I have never ducked anything and have always been forthcoming about my argument and very specific in my wording.
Actually, you have ducked responses to your statements just by retreading the same territory in an attempt to restart the argument.
col_impact wrote:There is nothing magic about that phrase. It is a scoping mechanism. When you actually read the Counter-Attack special rule (and I recommend you read the rule) you will note that it is not the clause that is actually scoping the ability. "Every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit" is the clause that is actually scoping the ability.
Yeah, I remember telling you it isn't magic.
col_impact wrote:Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.
Here I will make it real easy for you . . .
Spoiler:
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.
What's the difference between that statement and this one?
Spoiler:
If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule 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.
Simple. One allows an IC with the Counter-Attack rule to be able to take advantage of of the Special Rule when joined to a unit without it, while the other requires the unit to actually have the rule before it gets charged in order for any model to benefit.
col_impact wrote:Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?
It allows a unit without the rule to benefit from it if an IC joins the unit. It also covers the contingency of a unit with the special rule to be identified, even if an IC joins them. It is a 2-way condition, but only if identified as the target.
nekooni wrote:No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").
There is a difference. A unit without CA joined by an IC with CA while requiring the unit to have CA, will not activate. Such is the case if a Formation rule that allows the unit to do something, and the Formation has an IC joins a unit from another detachment.
However, in the case of how it stands, the IC with the rule can still benefit from the rule, even if they rest of the unit does not have it.
col_impact wrote:Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.
Here I will make it real easy for you . . .
Spoiler:
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.
What's the difference between that statement and this one?
Spoiler:
If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule 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.
Simple. One allows an IC with the Counter-Attack rule to be able to take advantage of of the Special Rule when joined to a unit without it, while the other requires the unit to actually have the rule before it gets charged in order for any model to benefit.
col_impact wrote:Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?
It allows a unit without the rule to gain the ability if an IC joins the unit. It also covers the contingency of a unit with the special rule to be identified, even if an IC joins them. It is a 2-way condition, but only if identified as the target.
nekooni wrote:No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").
There is a difference. A unit without CA joined by an IC with CA while requiring the unit to have CA, will not activate. Such is the case if a Formation rule that allows the unit to do something, and the Formation has an IC joins a unit from another detachment.
However, in the case of how it stands, the IC with the rule can still benefit from the rule, even if they rest of the unit does not have it.
You are mostly correct Charistophe. The clause is not meaningless as Nekooni's analysis would have it and the clause when present is doing something very specific. It is a scoping mechanism that when present allows the rule to actually see models attached to the unit.
"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.
Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).
A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.
Consider these two versions of Stubborn.
1)
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.
This version will "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.
This version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.
2)
Spoiler:
Stubborn
When a unit 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.
This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.
This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.
Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.
However, a scoping mechanism like " a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" can expand the subject of the ability to include models attached to the unit.
The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.
The problem with Charistophe's argument is that it is not supported by the rules.
Special Rules are Special Rules and there is a whole section defining them and listing them.
Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.
The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.
I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.
However, I will point out that my argument is the one that is supported by the rules.
I adhere to the IC Special Rules rule. [Charistophe wants us to use the rules for ICs and Ongoing Effects instead]
I adhere to the BRB that defines special rules as abilities. [Charistophe invents his own terminology to go with his use of the Ongoing Effects rules]
I am able to account for Stubborn actually being conferred from a unit with Stubborn to an IC without Stubborn. [Charistophe can't account for Stubborn actually being conferred, so either he is wrong, or the BRB is wrong, since the BRB directly tells us that Stubborn confers from a unit with Stubborn to an IC without Stubborn]
I am able to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Stubborn special that allows the conferring to happen from the unit with Stubborn to the IC without Stubborn. As indicated above, the scoping mechanism in the Stubborn accomplishes it. [ Charistophe is unable to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so once again either he is wrong or the BRB is wrong since the BRB directly tells us that Stubborn confers by virtue of "something specified in the rule itself"]
So basically my argument is the one that is actually supported by the rules.
Col - an amazingly sweeping statement to make , you're not going to over generalise now, surely?
Again. Specify the exact words that specify the IC. For the umpteenth time of asking. Show how "contains at least..." Is more specific, when it comes to an IC , that "a unit". Please show how you differentiate between special rules granted to models within a it, granted on a units data sheet - the special rules that are specified by the IC rule you love so much - and special rules that a unit is granted, at the unit level.
Or don't. Again. Given you yet again failed to answer either happy or myself the ,sat few times this was asked
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - an amazingly sweeping statement to make , you're not going to over generalise now, surely?
Again. Specify the exact words that specify the IC. For the umpteenth time of asking. Show how "contains at least..." Is more specific, when it comes to an IC , that "a unit". Please show how you differentiate between special rules granted to models within a it, granted on a units data sheet - the special rules that are specified by the IC rule you love so much - and special rules that a unit is granted, at the unit level.
Or don't. Again. Given you yet again failed to answer either happy or myself the ,sat few times this was asked
Talk about content less.
See my post above. It goes very much into detail and I have pointed to exact scoping mechanism and how "the unit with the special rule" misses the attached IC and "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is scoped to include attached ICs. So the scoping mechanism is something "specified in the rule itself" that incorporates attached models (which an IC joined to a unit is indisputably). The IC Special Rules rule does not require me to point to a portion of a special rule that specifically calls out the IC. I am only required to point to a specific portion of the rule that is in the rule itself and that is the portion responsible for actually incorporating the IC and therewith conferring the ability of the special rule. I have done this, and I detail it in my post above.
So see my post above. Or don't.
No one is expecting you to suddenly admit I am right. You are entrenched in your argument. Everyone is expecting you to keep obtusely tasking me with tasks I have already attended to and to keep throwing out jabs rather than actually provide anything in the way of a counter argument with weight.
At the end of the day, your inability to present a plausible counter argument that follows the rules means that my argument wins out.
col_impact wrote:You are mostly correct Charistophe. The clause is not meaningless as Nekooni's analysis would have it and the clause when present is doing something very specific. It is a scoping mechanism that when present allows the rule to actually see models attached to the unit.
Oh, I am completely correct, not just mostly. And get the name right, there is no 'e' at the end.
col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.
Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).
A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.
That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.
Much of what you wrote above, though, doesn't address the unit having the special rule belonging to the unit and not the IC. Keep in mind, though, that the IC joined to the unit will still be seen as part of the unit when a rule "sees" the unit as its target.
col_impact wrote:Consider these two versions of Stubborn.
1)
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.
This version will "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.
This version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.
Correct. The reason being that if the rule belongs to the unit, then there will be one model with a unit with the special rule. If the rule is on the IC, then even though the unit does not have it, it still contains one model with this special rule. AND the IC would still have to be part of the unit in order for the unit to have this qualification fulfilled.
col_impact wrote:2)
Spoiler:
Stubborn
When a unit 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.
This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.
This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.
Incorrect. There is no difference between the units as established in either version. The difference being the target of the rule.
The target here is the unit with the special rule. An IC does not give his special rule to the unit, so by joining the unit, the unit does not get it.
However, the IC is as much part of the unit here as he is in the previous version, and in the end, the target is still the unit.
Therefore, this version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the unit having the Stubborn ability and the ability being conferred to the IC.
col_impact wrote:Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.
Right, but it does not separate the IC from the unit when rules target the unit as a whole. Other conditions must still be met, but that does not change the fact the IC is still part of the unit.
col_impact wrote:The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.
Either you are lying or misinterpreting everything I have stated. I have never added "ongoing" to "effect" in this discussion, save to reference that section. I have stated that the effect of the special rule does get passed on to an IC if the effect of the special rule is focused on the unit as a whole. This is substantiated that Ongoing Effects still affect the IC after it leaves. If it is still affecting the IC when it leaves, that means the effects have to be in play while joined. So, too, even rules that are not ongoing but apply in those short cases before an IC can leave that are directed at a whole unit would also include the IC in its effect.
That is what was stated.
col_impact wrote:Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.
Special Rules are abilities which affect models or units with conditions outside the normal rules. The effect is what happens when the rule's ability is applied. Why can you not understand this?
col_impact wrote:The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.
Right, like affecting the unit the IC is part of. Because that is all Stubborn directs its ability's effects towards.
col_impact wrote:I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.
That is because you ignore what other people write, as demonstrated by this diversion to "Ongoing Effects".
LinkXx wrote: The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.
But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.
So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.
Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.
even if it was a special rule, which I still don't think is the case, it wouldn't need to confer, as the text reads "UNIT" not models. Again, the IC no longer separately exists for rules purposes, while he is a part of said UNIT.
col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.
Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).
A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.
That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.
Nope. You have not said that. Feel free to link a post of yours that proves you right. You will not be able to. You do not deal with special rules as abilities being conferred which is one of the key things making your argument not RAW.
Stubborn
When a unit 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.
This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.
This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.
Incorrect. There is no difference between the units as established in either version. The difference being the target of the rule.
The target here is the unit with the special rule. An IC does not give his special rule to the unit, so by joining the unit, the unit does not get it.
However, the IC is as much part of the unit here as he is in the previous version, and in the end, the target is still the unit.
Therefore, this version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the unit having the Stubborn ability and the ability being conferred to the IC.
Incorrect. You are ignoring the IC Special Rules rule that sets it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer to the IC and you are failing to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would meet the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule.
Spoiler:
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.
And you are contradicting what you said a post ago about Counter-Attack. If an IC attached to a unit is part of the unit then Nekooni's argument is correct and there is no difference between these two statements.
Spoiler:
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.
Spoiler:
If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule 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.
col_impact wrote:Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.
Right, but it does not separate the IC from the unit when rules target the unit as a whole. Other conditions must still be met, but that does not change the fact the IC is still part of the unit.
You are ignoring the IC Special Rules rule which has set it so the IC is not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. The special rules must be specifically conferred. Another key point that is keeping your argument from RAW.
col_impact wrote:The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.
Either you are lying or misinterpreting everything I have stated. I have never added "ongoing" to "effect" in this discussion, save to reference that section. I have stated that the effect of the special rule does get passed on to an IC if the effect of the special rule is focused on the unit as a whole. This is substantiated that Ongoing Effects still affect the IC after it leaves. If it is still affecting the IC when it leaves, that means the effects have to be in play while joined. So, too, even rules that are not ongoing but apply in those short cases before an IC can leave that are directed at a whole unit would also include the IC in its effect.
That is what was stated.
col_impact wrote:Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.
Special Rules are abilities which affect models or units with conditions outside the normal rules. The effect is what happens when the rule's ability is applied. Why can you not understand this?
col_impact wrote:The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.
Right, like affecting the unit the IC is part of. Because that is all Stubborn directs its ability's effects towards.
col_impact wrote:I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.
That is because you ignore what other people write, as demonstrated by this diversion to "Ongoing Effects".
Special rules are not effects. Special rules are abilities.
You are making up some whole new category called effect (using a dictionary as a rules source) and trying to use the rules for "Ongoing Effects" for how to handle the "effect" of the rule when the BRB provides no such distinction and no justification for doing so.
You have run rogue of the rules. You are making up your own categories and shoe-horning the rules for "Ongoing Effects" onto "effects" and then by virtue of sleight of hand slipping those rules onto special rules. Nice try but the rules do not support you.
This is another key reason why your argument is not RAW. Not even close.
Stick to the definitions and usage of terms in the BRB.
I do and that's why my argument is RAW and supported by the rules.
col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.
Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.
Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).
A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.
That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.
Nope. You have not said that. Feel free to link a post of yours that proves you right. You will not be able to. You do not deal with special rules as abilities being conferred which is one of the key things making your argument not RAW.
I JUST said half of that, not in the exact same way, but still I have just said that AND YOU QUOTED ME SAYING IT. You have responded to most of them, and now you cannot remember?!
