Reading through the rules for the new Wulfen unit, I was struck by the wording of the Bounding Lope rule. It states that the unit can Run and Charge with no restriction to the entire unit's composition needing this rule. Am I correct in believing that ICs that join the unit can also Run and Charge with them?
The Death Frenzy rule calls out models in the unit. As an IC is not originally a model from the unit I would believe this rule doesn't carry over to any joining ICs.
Like most things in 40k. It is not clear. ITC/NOVA ruled it doesn't. ETC ruled it does. Make of that what you will, there is no consensus.
In friendly games, speak to your opponent so they can play under the same rules.
For Death Frenzy though, if it calls out models in the unit, it would work. I don't have the campaign book, so I can't say with authority.
Tropic Thunder wrote: The Death Frenzy rule calls out models in the unit. As an IC is not originally a model from the unit I would believe this rule doesn't carry over to any joining ICs.
If the Independent Character joined the unit, he would qualify as a model in the unit. It would need to say something along the lines of "... a model in the unit with this special rule..." for it to disallow its use by the Independent Character without a shadow of a doubt.
Rasko wrote: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570/678568.page
20p's of discussing the same thing. Whether or not effects that call out "units" in special rules effect IC's. Bounding Leap falls into this category.
After that thread closed, 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:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
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 Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
This leads to some odd exploits like deep striking an IC so that he attaches to a unit that is going to assault that turn and being able to assault right along with them.
However, even though the IC can charge, I think he will slow the unit down so that the unit doesn't get to re-roll a failed charge (similar to units losing fleet charge re-roll when ICs without fleet are attached).
Spoiler:
If a unit has models that roll differently for their charge range, the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model.
Even though the IC did not need to benefit from Bounding Leap to be able to charge along with the unit, not having the benefit of Bounding Leap will mean the whole unit loses its charge re-roll.
Rasko wrote: For Death Frenzy though, if it calls out models in the unit, it would work. I don't have the campaign book, so I can't say with authority.
Correct. "Models in the unit" logically incorporates attached models (ie ICs) and would satisfy "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" part of the IC Special Rules rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
col_impact wrote: The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.
col_impact wrote: The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.
But we've been over that plenty of times already.
This is a permissive ruleset.
Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.
However, per the Characters and Assault rule the IC is allowed to charge along with the unit.
So the IC gets to charge along with the unit but the unit loses the re-roll of the charge distance since the IC does not benefit from Bounding Leap as the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model, which in this case is a model with a single roll for the charge distance.
col_impact wrote: The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.
This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.
But we've been over that plenty of times already.
This is a permissive ruleset.
Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.
However, per the Characters and Assault rule it is allowed to charge along with the unit.
So the IC gets to charge but does not get the re-roll of the charge distance.
Don't be misquoting the rule now.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not GET the Bounding Leap rule. It does not exclude the IC from the unit, though, when a rule affects it. Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions.
It is only your assumption that it is saying the conferring the benefit is forbidden, as you think that is the "spirit" of that rule.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not GET the Bounding Leap rule. It does not exclude the IC from the unit, though, when a rule affects it. Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions.
It is only your assumption that it is saying the conferring the benefit is forbidden, as you think that is the "spirit" of that rule.
I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.
Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.
Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".
What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?
col_impact wrote: After that thread closed, 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.
I don't think that would allow the IC to sidestep the IC Special Rules and charge. There is an important sentence before the key quote.
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit."
If the Wulfen want to just run, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to just charge, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to run and charge, now it is doing so through the use of a special rule via Bounding Lope.
And then it circles back to the 20p thread, of which there is no need to get into.
col_impact wrote: I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.
Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.
Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".
What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?
And that is what I meant by " Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions."
You are using the permission of how Stubborn works to add restrictions to the list. "Confer" is used in relation to "Special Rules", not their benefits. By translating "confer their special rules" to mean "confer the benefits of their special rules", you are not going by RAW, but by the spirit of what you think it means.
The IC Special Rules section allows a rule to bypass the restriction against conferring the special rules by conferring the benefit ala Stubborn. This does not mean that the rest of the sentence is restricting it. There are already rules against a model benefiting from a rule they do not have, as presented in the introduction of the Special Rules Section. By blocking the transfer of Special Rules, the blocking of their benefit is already assured. UNLESS it specifically states otherwise as in Stubborn.
In addition, Death Frenzy follows Blind's phraseology more than Stubborn. But Stubborn operates only on a unit level interaction, i.e. Morale Checks and Pinning Tests, while Death Frenzy operates on a model's interaction, i.e. Piling In and Attacking.
col_impact wrote: I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.
Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.
Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".
What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?
And that is what I meant by " Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions."
You are using the permission of how Stubborn works to add restrictions to the list. "Confer" is used in relation to "Special Rules", not their benefits. By translating "confer their special rules" to mean "confer the benefits of their special rules", you are not going by RAW, but by the spirit of what you think it means.
The IC Special Rules section allows a rule to bypass the restriction against conferring the special rules by conferring the benefit ala Stubborn. This does not mean that the rest of the sentence is restricting it. There are already rules against a model benefiting from a rule they do not have, as presented in the introduction of the Special Rules Section. By blocking the transfer of Special Rules, the blocking of their benefit is already assured. UNLESS it specifically states otherwise as in Stubborn.
In addition, Death Frenzy follows Blind's phraseology more than Stubborn. But Stubborn operates only on a unit level interaction, i.e. Morale Checks and Pinning Tests, while Death Frenzy operates on a model's interaction, i.e. Piling In and Attacking.
No.
You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.
We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.
First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.
Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".
So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.
And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.
This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.
The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.
So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It is against forum rules to use the dictionary as a rules resource over the BRB and it is against RAW.
col_impact wrote: After that thread closed, 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.
I don't think that would allow the IC to sidestep the IC Special Rules and charge. There is an important sentence before the key quote.
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit."
If the Wulfen want to just run, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to just charge, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to run and charge, now it is doing so through the use of a special rule via Bounding Lope.
And then it circles back to the 20p thread, of which there is no need to get into.
I see what you are saying. At this point it will come down to a rule by rule analysis to see what level of rule (Basic or Advanced) is actually still in play. I anticipated a discussion along those lines and so I provided a chain of permission in my thread above already.
As you can see, it's a Basic rule that takes away the unit's ability to charge if they have run. And it's a Basic rule that allows the Character to charge if the unit he is in is charging. You have two rules acting at the same Basic level to ultimately enable a Character to charge if he is in a unit that can charge.
I think my analysis is correct, but if you can offer a more definitive analysis I would love to hear it.
You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.
We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.
Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.
And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.
col_impact wrote: First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.
Stubborn does not use "confer", so that explanation is obviously not RAW.
Stubborn also does not "confer" any special rule at all. It provides a benefit to the unit.
In addition, the IC Special Rules do not use Stubborn as an example of how NOT to confer, but rather how to confer. You are trying to use permission of allowance to define the restriction.
col_impact wrote: Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".
Considering that the rule states the IC counts as being part of the unit, one could make a reasonable assumption from that point that the IC gets the rules the unit has. IC Special Rules is what puts a stop to this.
And as pointed out, there is already a point made that the standard position of a rule is that it only affects the possessing model, so denying the mix here would not make sense.
In addition, it is established that rules that affect the unit do include the IC unless otherwise noted. There is a whole section on rules that extend beyond the time the IC is joined to the unit. If they were not already connected, continuing the effect would be pointless and would require methods noting how they DO include the IC with the unit.
col_impact wrote: So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.
I use them as RAW, actually. In this case, you are using a spirit of a definition used to allow the mix to define the restriction against mixing.
col_impact wrote: And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.
Incorrect. The standard rule is that special rules do not get mixed between unit and IC. Stubborn is used as a reference point on how to mix the special rules, which means it is an exception to the restriction. Stubborn does this by placing its benefit on the unit after the unit meets its requirements, and the IC is part of the unit.
Not that you'll pay proper attention to any of this.
col_impact wrote: This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.
The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.
Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.
And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.
"Assault" is provided a definition. "Deployment" is provided a definition. "Deployed" and "confer" are not, but they are used in certain ways. Conferring, however, is not ever actually used in such a way as to assume anything other than the OED/MW definition.
col_impact wrote: So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It does it by not actually conferring the rule, but by placing a benefit on a unit that includes the IC. That is literally the only thing it actually says. No spirit of the definition is used. No special definition is used (aside from redefining Stubborn). No special phrase noted as being set aside as magical permission. Just the actual words using provided by the English language.
Unfortunately, Bounding Lope does not address its benefits like Stubborn, so using it as a standard is pointless, unless you look at it as I addressed it above. Instead, it's language more matches Blind, which IS noted as an example of a special rule's effects being applied to an IC in the affected unit.
Ok guys, I am not arguing the 'effects that call out "units" in special rules' argument.
This is strictly from the stance that IC's don't benefit for the purposes of detemining if it can bypass the IC's Special Rules argument entirely.
Please do not mistake my intentions with this post.
col_impact wrote: I see what you are saying. At this point it will come down to a rule by rule analysis to see what level of rule (Basic or Advanced) is actually still in play. I anticipated a discussion along those lines and so I provided a chain of permission in my thread above already.
As you can see, it's a Basic rule that takes away the unit's ability to charge if they have run. And it's a Basic rule that allows the Character to charge if the unit he is in is charging. You have two rules acting at the same Basic level to ultimately enable a Character to charge if he is in a unit that can charge.
I think my analysis is correct, but if you can offer a more definitive analysis I would love to hear it.
Yea, you are right. They are both Basic Rules. One gives the ability to charge if the unit charges and one takes away the ability to charge if the unit has run.
I think the most important thing is that you have to go in sequence.
(Over-arching Game Basic Rules)
•The Unit can't charge if it ran in the shooting phase.
•If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.
(Order of Events)
>Wulfen Unit runs in the shooting phase. Wulfen can't charge. IC can't charge. A Basic Rule has taken away the ability to charge.
>Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running. Wulfen can charge via Bounding Lope. IC can't charge.
>Wulfen Unit can't charge as it has a model in the unit that can't charge.
I think the key thing to note in this sequence is
•If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.
The unit has not actually charged into combat, therefore "dragging" the IC. This rule never actually has the chance to be enacted.
All the models in the unit still have to have the ability to charge before the IC can charge with the unit.
You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.
We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.
Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.
And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.
col_impact wrote: First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.
Stubborn does not use "confer", so that explanation is obviously not RAW.
Stubborn also does not "confer" any special rule at all. It provides a benefit to the unit.
In addition, the IC Special Rules do not use Stubborn as an example of how NOT to confer, but rather how to confer. You are trying to use permission of allowance to define the restriction.
col_impact wrote: Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".
Considering that the rule states the IC counts as being part of the unit, one could make a reasonable assumption from that point that the IC gets the rules the unit has. IC Special Rules is what puts a stop to this.
And as pointed out, there is already a point made that the standard position of a rule is that it only affects the possessing model, so denying the mix here would not make sense.
In addition, it is established that rules that affect the unit do include the IC unless otherwise noted. There is a whole section on rules that extend beyond the time the IC is joined to the unit. If they were not already connected, continuing the effect would be pointless and would require methods noting how they DO include the IC with the unit.
col_impact wrote: So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.
I use them as RAW, actually. In this case, you are using a spirit of a definition used to allow the mix to define the restriction against mixing.
col_impact wrote: And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.
Incorrect. The standard rule is that special rules do not get mixed between unit and IC. Stubborn is used as a reference point on how to mix the special rules, which means it is an exception to the restriction. Stubborn does this by placing its benefit on the unit after the unit meets its requirements, and the IC is part of the unit.
Not that you'll pay proper attention to any of this.
col_impact wrote: This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.
The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.
Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.
And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "
Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.
"Assault" is provided a definition. "Deployment" is provided a definition. "Deployed" and "confer" are not, but they are used in certain ways. Conferring, however, is not ever actually used in such a way as to assume anything other than the OED/MW definition.
col_impact wrote: So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.
It does it by not actually conferring the rule, but by placing a benefit on a unit that includes the IC. That is literally the only thing it actually says. No spirit of the definition is used. No special definition is used (aside from redefining Stubborn). No special phrase noted as being set aside as magical permission. Just the actual words using provided by the English language.
Unfortunately, Bounding Lope does not address its benefits like Stubborn, so using it as a standard is pointless, unless you look at it as I addressed it above. Instead, it's language more matches Blind, which IS noted as an example of a special rule's effects being applied to an IC in the affected unit.
The word dictionary is not mentioned at all in the BRB at all.
So any claim of being able to use a dictionary as a source of rules can be nothing other than a house rule on your part. Dictionary is not part of the rules of 40k.
40k is free to use words in ways different than the real world. There is no definition of "shooting" in 40k. Shooting in 40k involves dice and charts and templates and blasts which has nothing to do with real word shooting. Words take on a different meaning as they are applied in this abstract game.
"Confer" is one such term. It's somewhat similar to its real-world definition but we must sort out what confer actually means in the game of 40k by what the rules tell us to do in order to confer.
The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )
So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.
So . . .
Bounding Lope lacks what Stubborn has and so it does not extend its effect onto attached models (ie ICs).
Death Frenzy does have what Stubborn has and so it does extend its effect onto attached models (is ICs).
However, per the Character and Assaults rule an IC joined to a unit with Bounding Lope is allowed to charge. The unit just loses the ability to re-roll charge distance because of the 'charge at rate of slowest model' Basic rule.
>Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running. Wulfen can charge via Bounding Lope. IC can't charge.
Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running.
"This unit" can charge via Bounding Lope, overriding the basic rule that the unit can't charge if the unit has run.
"This unit" charges.
The IC is a character and (per the basic rule for Characters and Assaults) charges with the unit.
If running somehow meant that the IC could not "move any further" that turn then the charge could be restricted to 0" per this rule but the rules make no mention of any such restriction.
Spoiler:
the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model.
But the permission to charge after running has been lifted for "this unit" and the IC has explicit Basic level character rule permission to charge with the unit and no restriction on further movement.
The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )
So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.
But that means "following the spirit" of what it says, not what it actually says. Something you claim you do not do. Even more so considering that Stubborn never states it confers anything.
So, I will continue to use my dictionary as it is intended to be used, and you keep doing something you claim not to be doing. Have fun convincing people of that.
The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )
So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.
But that means "following the spirit" of what it says, not what it actually says. Something you claim you do not do. Even more so considering that Stubborn never states it confers anything.
So, I will continue to use my dictionary as it is intended to be used, and you keep doing something you claim not to be doing. Have fun convincing people of that.
Incorrect. I am adhering exactly to the rules. So I will stick to the rule book and RAW and you can continue using your house rule which allows you to use the dictionary as a rules source.
The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
Stubborn may not mention 'confer' but the BRB explicitly tells us that what the Stubborn rule does is synonymous with specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
Spoiler:
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.
As we know, we can remove a parentheses and the essential meaning of a sentence is unchanged.
Spoiler:
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 rules says that unless the rule specifically confers the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and/or vice versa) in the rule itself the special rules are not conferred from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).
Adding the parenthesis back in indicates that the BRB considers Stubborn to be satisfying the requirement of specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).
The BRB literally holds up Stubborn as the exemplar to follow to understand how special rules specifically confer from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).
So we examine Stubborn and see quite clearly that the clause which extends the effect of the special to attached models is synonymous with conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).
It's all right there in the rules. You just have to read and adhere to the logic in the rules and adhere to using words in the way the BRB uses them.
col_impact wrote: The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
Incorrect. It is stating that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. There is a difference. But who cares, you don't use the dictionary anyway and you haven't defined "stating" as used in the rulebook.
Stubborn says nothing which can be construed as "conferring", "granting", or any other synonym of the word. Stubborn gives nothing to models.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn may not mention 'confer' but the BRB explicitly tells us that what the Stubborn rule does is synonymous with specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
And that is not going by RAW, but by going by what you believe the spirit of the rule is. Congratulations, you just proved my point.
col_impact wrote: So we examine Stubborn and see quite clearly that the clause which extends the effect of the special to attached models is synonymous with conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).
It's all right there in the rules. You just have to read and adhere to the logic in the rules and adhere to using words in the way the BRB uses them.
RAW.
Not RAW. You are extrapolating it out. Now, I find it interesting that you did not quote Stubborn and highlight what is "synonymous" with specifically stating it "is conferring a benefit".
To which point, if we are going to continue extrapolating, then we can easily see that numerous other rules follow the same pattern while not always using the exact same language that is unnecessary to their specific circumstances.
But we've been through all that. You won't listen to it, and people can look up the other thread that has been linked and this has been explained ad nauseum.
col_impact wrote: The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.
Incorrect. It is stating that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. There is a difference. But who cares, you don't use the dictionary anyway and you haven't defined "stating" as used in the rulebook.
Stubborn says nothing which can be construed as "conferring", "granting", or any other synonym of the word. Stubborn gives nothing to models.
So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.
I will take the word of the BRB over yours. The BRB is not lying to us. Stubborn IS specifically stating that it confers in the way that the BRB is using the word "confer". If the BRB uses "confer" in a way that is different than the dictionary meaning, we have to accept it and not reject it. If you reject the BRB you are not following the rules.
The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".
So my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how special rules are conferred. For the BRB, confer means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".
Your argument is not RAW. You reject what the BRB tells us about Stubborn (the BRB is lying to us, Stubborn is not specifically conferring). You force a dictionary definition into the rule and self-destruct the rule so that it never actually does anything. Can you point to any special rule in the whole of 40k which "confers" to the IC when the IC joins a unit in the way that you would have us define "confer"?
I will take the word of the BRB over yours. I will use "confer" in the way that the BRB tells us to use "confer" and accept that Stubborn specifically confers its special rule onto the IC by "conferring" in the way the BRB use the term "conferring" ie by "extending the effect of [the rule]".
col_impact wrote: So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.
No, do not start making things up and saying I said them. This is what started me calling you a liar in two different threads.
I am saying your position is full of crap and gave the reasons why. I am saying that what you think the BRB is saying is not actually what it literally states.
I did not state that the dictionary has greater authority than the BRB, I said the BRB does not provide a specific written redefinition of "confer" from "grant or bestow" to "grant or bestow the benefit of" anywhere, much less in the Stubborn rule. These are two different concepts.
I have stated in the past that Stubborn gets around this restriction by not granting the special rule, but by directing its benefit to the unit which fulfills its qualifications.
col_impact wrote: The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".
Incorrect. All that phrase means is that it is 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".
The actual verb used after all the qualifying statements and conditions is a permissive verb "ignore". As far as I know, "ignore" has no connection to "confer", "grant", "give" or any other synonym. So, unless you're going to tell me "ignore" now means "grant" (which would be even more ridiculous considering the rest of the sentence), we are back to Stubborn not specifically stating anything about conferring.
col_impact wrote: So my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how special rules are conferred. For the BRB, confer means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".
Incorrect. It relies on having to extrapolate and infer meanings to something other than it literally states. This is not Rules As Written, but Rules As Assumed, Rules As I Interpret Them, or HYWPI.
col_impact wrote: So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.
No, do not start making things up and saying I said them. This is what started me calling you a liar in two different threads.
I am saying your position is full of crap and gave the reasons why. I am saying that what you think the BRB is saying is not actually what it literally states.
I did not state that the dictionary has greater authority than the BRB, I said the BRB does not provide a specific written redefinition of "confer" from "grant or bestow" to "grant or bestow the benefit of" anywhere, much less in the Stubborn rule. These are two different concepts.
I have stated in the past that Stubborn gets around this restriction by not granting the special rule, but by directing its benefit to the unit which fulfills its qualifications.
The BRB flat out tells us that in the Stubborn rule itself, the special rules of the IC are specifically conferred onto the joined unit and vice versa.
Spoiler:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
You are either flat out ignoring the BRB or making the claim that the BRB is lying to us. So which is it? Are you ignoring plainly stated rules or are you claiming that the BRB is lying to us? Either way your argument is not RAW.
I will not ignore the rule and what it says like you do. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, Stubborn must be doing something within the rule itself that the BRB considers to be synonmyous with specifically conferrring the special rules of the IC onto the joined unit and vice versa.
If you examine the Stubborn rule itself you quickly come across a clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) which allows the effect of the Stubborn rule to logically incorporate attached models.
So in order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using 'confer' to mean "to extend the effect of [the rule]". The BRB is of course free to use 'confer' in whatever way it pleases and how the BRB uses 'confer' is all that is important here. We don't care about dictionary meanings. They have no authority here. The exemplar of Stubborn is all that is needed to assert RAW that the BRB uses confer to mean "to extend the effect of [the rule]".
So, once again, my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how the BRB decides special rules are 'conferred' and what 'conferred' means in the game. For the BRB, 'confer' means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".
Charistoph wrote: Same crap, nothing new. Already addressed. Review above for my response.
Yup. You are still being obtuse. You are either flat out ignoring the rules or claiming the BRB is lying to us when it says Stubborn specifically confers its special rule.
Here is the rule which proves you are being obtuse.
Spoiler:
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.
I have shown RAW that your argument is wholly invalid. You cannot ignore rules or claim the rules are lying and claim you have a RAW argument.
Charistoph wrote: Same crap, nothing new. Already addressed. Review above for my response.
Yup. You are still being obtuse. You are either flat out ignoring the rules or claiming the BRB is lying to us when it says Stubborn specifically confers its special rule.
Here is the rule which proves you are being obtuse.
Spoiler:
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.
I have shown RAW that your argument is wholly invalid. You cannot ignore rules or claim the rules are lying and claim you have a RAW argument.
And you didn't actually address the statements regarding the actual statements being used. Who is the one being obtuse? Do you actually have permission to call someone that? What do you mean by obtuse? The rulebook does not define this.
Therefore, same crap. Nothing new. My response is otherwise as above.
_ghost_ wrote: um col_impact actually you proveed nothing the way you read Stubborn.
the only thing you show is that you are not able to apply logic to rules( mixing up conditions with results and such stuff)
By locic Stubborn tells us that if a special rule affects the whole unit a IC is included. this is what Stubborn tells us.
The BRB tells us that the Stubborn special rule satisfies the "specified in the rule itself" clause and therefore, for Stubborn, "the unit’s special rules are conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are conferred upon the unit."
You and Charistophe are simply refusing to deal with what the rule says. That is fine - you can house rule you get to ignore the rule.
I will deal with what the rule says. That's why my argument is RAW.
Dear MOD: Please shut this down. These few, these dedicated few, should perhaps take their conversation to private messages. Constantly re-hashing the same arguments has now derailed multiple threads.
col_impact wrote: ou and Charistophe are simply refusing to deal with what the rule says. That is fine - you can house rule you get to ignore the rule.
I will deal with what the rule says. That's why my argument is RAW.
Liar. I have dealt with what the rules actually state. When you responded to it, you ignored that portion and reemphasized what you have kept saying. And all you have kept saying is that we don't treat Stubborn as RAW, but as a translation matrix to fit YOUR beliefs.
col_impact wrote: ou and Charistophe are simply refusing to deal with what the rule says. That is fine - you can house rule you get to ignore the rule.
I will deal with what the rule says. That's why my argument is RAW.
Liar. I have dealt with what the rules actually state. When you responded to it, you ignored that portion and reemphasized what you have kept saying. And all you have kept saying is that we don't treat Stubborn as RAW, but as a translation matrix to fit YOUR beliefs.
You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.
Spoiler:
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
The BRB obviously calls Stubborn out as meeting the criterion "specified in the rule itself" so therefore the unit's Stubborn rule is conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s Stubborn rule is conferred upon the unit.
If you refuse to adhere to what the rules state, you cannot claim to have dealt with what the rules state.
So your argument is a house rule that ignores rules. That's fine.
col_impact wrote:You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.
Liar, I have. The fact is you have not addressed it directly using the standards of logic and RAW.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".
Incorrect. All that phrase means is that it is 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".
The actual verb used after all the qualifying statements and conditions is a permissive verb "ignore". As far as I know, "ignore" has no connection to "confer", "grant", "give" or any other synonym. So, unless you're going to tell me "ignore" now means "grant" (which would be even more ridiculous considering the rest of the sentence), we are back to Stubborn not specifically stating anything about conferring.
So, yeah. I have dealt with it using logic and the Rules As Written. Ignoring it doesn't mean I didn't do it. Care to actually respond to this?
col_impact wrote:You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.
Liar, I have. The fact is you have not addressed it directly using the standards of logic and RAW.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".
Incorrect. All that phrase means is that it is 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".
The actual verb used after all the qualifying statements and conditions is a permissive verb "ignore". As far as I know, "ignore" has no connection to "confer", "grant", "give" or any other synonym. So, unless you're going to tell me "ignore" now means "grant" (which would be even more ridiculous considering the rest of the sentence), we are back to Stubborn not specifically stating anything about conferring.
So, yeah. I have dealt with it using logic and the Rules As Written. Ignoring it doesn't mean I didn't do it. Care to actually respond to this?
Sure.
I will walk you through it step by step.
Consider this rule statement.
"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."
Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?
"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."
Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?
So the answer is actually, "no"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tropic Thunder wrote: Um... Sorry, everyone. I thought I was asking a benign question.
It's not your fault that people cannot read and people try to stop things like this because "it is too powerful so it must not be legal, here's how".
A lot of the rules can actually work just fine when you take time to read them and are aware of the numerous interactions. Some people just love their complications.
"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."
Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?
So the answer is actually, "no"?
Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.
col_impact wrote: Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.
Do not project. You have done nothing but dodge that which forces you to actually look at what you are saying. Instead you just repeat the same things over and over instead.
col_impact wrote: Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.
Do not project. You have done nothing but dodge that which forces you to actually look at what you are saying. Instead you just repeat the same things over and over instead.
Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.
Your argument isnt uncontested. Its been shown to be false - here and in the 20page threa d- its just too much troubole to argue with YOU, specifically.
col_impact wrote: Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.
Who is dodging now?
I presented a challenge to which you have not actually addressed and awaiting an answer, and reminding you of it. Instead you ignore it hoping I will give up on it.
col_impact wrote: Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.
Who is dodging now?
I presented a challenge to which you have not actually addressed and awaiting an answer, and reminding you of it. Instead you ignore it hoping I will give up on it.
Sure.
Let's try this again.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
"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?
Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special 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."
What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?
Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special Rule").
col_impact wrote: What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?
Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.
So to clarify, your position is that the BRB is mistaken (or lying) about Stubborn specifying?
My position is that the rulebook does not actually tell us how Stubborn specifies it is conferred (specifically since it never says in Stubborn that it is conferred, nor does it mention benefits, or ICs). My take, is that rules that affect units, whether or not it specifically calls out the unit, or mentions only one model needing the rule, affects all models in the unit.
"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?
Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special Rule").
Just answer the question. It's presented in a very straightforward manner.
It must be specified in the rule itself. Which is - as I've tried to explain just now - not relevant to the argument presented. The argument presented is that what is being relevant to the discussion are ongoing effects created by a Special rule. I've explained this more in-detail, including how this relates to Stubborn, in the post I've linked.
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I just can't get through all of the 20 pages...
The crux of the argument seems to be
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."
One side says that the "unit" is all the specification that the BRB gives you.
One side says that the speciifcation is having a clause. Whether it be "that contains at least one model", "with any models with the", etc. It doesn't matter what exactly it is. It just has to have a clause of some sort.
So taking the idea that the "unit" is the specification that the rule needs for the IC, is there even a special rule where it fails the specification?
"Unless specified in the rule itself the unit’s special rules are not conferred...."
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there must be cases when it fails.
I was looking through the BRB and a couple codices I have, and I couldn't find a single time where it fails.
Doesn't that mean that the specification that the BRB refers to isn't "unit" but a clause?
Conversely, if you take the idea that the clause is the specification. There are instances where a rule fails the specification.
col_impact wrote: What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?
Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.
So to clarify, your position is that the BRB is mistaken (or lying) about Stubborn specifying?
My position is that the rulebook does not actually tell us how Stubborn specifies it is conferred (specifically since it never says in Stubborn that it is conferred, nor does it mention benefits, or ICs). My take, is that rules that affect units, whether or not it specifically calls out the unit, or mentions only one model needing the rule, affects all models in the unit.
Your positions seems to be that the BRB is mistaken about what it actually does (" the rulebook does not actually tell us"). It's telling us that the specification is there, but it's not actually there when we go to find.
That's one solution. Let's consider others.
How do we resolve the contradiction?
The BRB tells us that Stubborn has what it needs (something "specified in the rule itself") to specifically confer the unit's Stubborn special rule to the IC.
A) The BRB is making a mistake or lying to us. Stubborn does not actually confer. It does something else. The effects of Stubborn get to the IC there but not by actually conferring.
B) The BRB is not mistaken or lying to us. The BRB uses confer to mean something that Stubborn actually specifies in the rule itself. For the BRB, confer means something slightly different than the OED definition.
Only B is the RAW approach.
Of course a side issue comes up in the B solution . . .
A) The BRB is not permitted to redefine English words for game use.
B) The BRB is free to redefine English words for game use.
Only B is the RAW approach.
If the BRB uses words in novel ways you have to accept it. Its the rules as they are written.
"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?
Still dodging. I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?
Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?
It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?
Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?
DeathstarMania wrote: Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?
It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?
Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?
No idea what you are asking, but if you could be more clear I could take a shot at it.
Brother Ramses wrote: No idea what you are asking, but if you could be more clear I could take a shot at it.
Thanks. I'm not sure how I would go about searching it. And the 20p thread is a little daunting. Just thought I'd ask, in case there is someone who answered this before.
The crux of the argument seems to be
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."
One side says that the "unit" is all the specification that the BRB gives you.
One side says that the speciifcation is having a clause. Whether it be "that contains at least one model", "with any models with the", etc. It doesn't matter what exactly it is. It just has to have a clause of some sort.
So taking the idea that the "unit" is the specification that the rule needs for the IC, is there even a special rule where it fails the specification?
"Unless specified in the rule itself the unit’s special rules are not conferred...."
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there must be cases when it fails.
I was looking through the BRB and a couple codices I have, and I couldn't find a single time where it fails.
Doesn't that mean that the specification that the BRB refers to isn't "unit" but a clause?
Conversely, if you take the idea that the clause is the specification. There are instances where a rule fails the specification.
It's what I wrote before.
I mean that if the specification is "unit" like one side says, it seems like every special rule in the game would pass.
I was just wondering if there is a rule that I haven't found where it would fail the specification.
Otherwise, why would the book even ask for a specification in the first place?
If there is a pass scenario, there must be a fail scenario. No?
DeathstarMania wrote: Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?
It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?
Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?
In terms of USRs, plenty. In terms of special rules unique to units, also plenty. In terms of Command Benefits and Formations Special Rules, very very few (I can't think of any off hand).
For USRs, look up Fleet, Counter-Attack, and Relentless for different variations. Fleet requires all models to have it for the unit to use it, including joined ICs. Counter-Attack is activated by an action on the unit, but only models with the rule gain the benefit. Relentless is only available to the model with the rule.
For special rules unique to units, it depends on the codex. Which army do you use? I might be able to point some specifics out.
For my Necrons, Deathmarks are a good example of both forms. They have a rule which allows the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike from Reserves during the opponent's turn and then shoot. They also have a rule that allows Deathmarks to Wound on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike. The first would include joined ICs (provided the IC could Deep Strike at all, of course), as it works upon the unit. However, the second is not applied to the unit, only the Deathmarks.
Charistoph wrote: In terms of USRs, plenty. In terms of special rules unique to units, also plenty. In terms of Command Benefits and Formations Special Rules, very very few (I can't think of any off hand).
For USRs, look up Fleet, Counter-Attack, and Relentless for different variations. Fleet requires all models to have it for the unit to use it, including joined ICs. Counter-Attack is activated by an action on the unit, but only models with the rule gain the benefit. Relentless is only available to the model with the rule.
For special rules unique to units, it depends on the codex. Which army do you use? I might be able to point some specifics out.
For my Necrons, Deathmarks are a good example of both forms. They have a rule which allows the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike from Reserves during the opponent's turn and then shoot. They also have a rule that allows Deathmarks to Wound on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike. The first would include joined ICs (provided the IC could Deep Strike at all, of course), as it works upon the unit. However, the second is not applied to the unit, only the Deathmarks.
I was only talking about special rules that would fall under the "Independent Characters and Special Rules" header.
So I guess Fleet and Counter-Attack would matter in this case.
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.
Fleet A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.
I understood one side was saying that the "unit" was the specification wasn't it? How do these fail the specification? I'm a little confused.
"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?
Still dodging. I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?
Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
First things first Charistoph. Blabbering on about something I did not ask is dodging the question I asked.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
DeathstarMania wrote:I was only talking about special rules that would fall under the "Independent Characters and Special Rules" header. So I guess Fleet and Counter-Attack would matter in this case.
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.
Fleet A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.
I understood one side was saying that the "unit" was the specification wasn't it? How do these fail the specification? I'm a little confused.
Units and models are two different levels of entities, and you must consider the target and conditions of the rules in question. I will highlight in red that which separates things back out.
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.
Counter-Attack only applies its benefit to "every model with the Counter-attack special rule". If an IC does not have it, he does not gain the +1 Attack.
Fleet A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.
Fleet requires all models to have Fleet before it can function, and that includes the IC.
I brought up Relentless because it is equally addressed in the IC Special Rules as much as Fearless, Fleet, or Counter-Attack. Relentless does not get conferred to an IC just because he is in a unit full of models with Relentless. Relentless only applies its benefit to those models who actually possess it.
The IC Special Rules section is to make sure that the IC doesn't get the full benefits of being counted as part of the unit, i.e. the rules on the unit's datasheet are not virtually transplanted (or "conferred) to the IC's datasheet just because he is in the unit. The rule itself must address the unit with its benefit, but even then, it may be limited by something else, like Fleet requiring all models to have it, or For Glory, For Russ requiring all models to be withing 12" of the Wolf Lord from that detachment.
col_impact wrote:First things first Charistoph. Blabbering on about something I did not ask is dodging the question I asked.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
Wow, you really do not pay attention very well, do you? I presented a challenge to this posts ago and you do not respond. And in this case of what you quoted, I already addressed it in that post.
Like I said, you won't face it at all, so you just keep trying to reset the argument to a point you think you have control. I've left this behind long ago.
Charistoph wrote: I brought up Relentless because it is equally addressed in the IC Special Rules as much as Fearless, Fleet, or Counter-Attack. Relentless does not get conferred to an IC just because he is in a unit full of models with Relentless. Relentless only applies its benefit to those models who actually possess it.
The IC Special Rules section is to make sure that the IC doesn't get the full benefits of being counted as part of the unit, i.e. the rules on the unit's datasheet are not virtually transplanted (or "conferred) to the IC's datasheet just because he is in the unit. The rule itself must address the unit with its benefit, but even then, it may be limited by something else, like Fleet requiring all models to have it, or For Glory, For Russ requiring all models to be withing 12" of the Wolf Lord from that detachment.
Thanks for walking through it with me.
But you are talking about something a little different than what I'm talking about. I'll try to explain clearer.
"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 "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."
I believe that you guys were saying that the specification that "Unless specified in the rule itself..." asked for, is referring to "unit". Right?
That's how you know, when Counter-Attack says, "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...", it includes the IC.
I believe this is what people were saying so far. Right?
That it is specified in Counter-Attack, exactly the same as Stubborn specified it.
Counter-Attack: If a unit contains...
Fleet: A unit composed...
We know we include the IC because it is specified, as much as Stubborn specifies. I think this was the argument.
I am asking that if the "unit" is actually the specification in "Unless specified in the rule itself...", is there ever a rule that fails the specification?
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification to include the IC, there must be a case where the IC is not included.
I couldn't find a single special rule that failed the specification. So doesn't that mean the specification is not "unit", in Stubborn?
But that it is a clause?
Charistoph wrote: I brought up Relentless because it is equally addressed in the IC Special Rules as much as Fearless, Fleet, or Counter-Attack. Relentless does not get conferred to an IC just because he is in a unit full of models with Relentless. Relentless only applies its benefit to those models who actually possess it.
The IC Special Rules section is to make sure that the IC doesn't get the full benefits of being counted as part of the unit, i.e. the rules on the unit's datasheet are not virtually transplanted (or "conferred) to the IC's datasheet just because he is in the unit. The rule itself must address the unit with its benefit, but even then, it may be limited by something else, like Fleet requiring all models to have it, or For Glory, For Russ requiring all models to be withing 12" of the Wolf Lord from that detachment.
Thanks for walking through it with me.
But you are talking about something a little different than what I'm talking about. I'll try to explain clearer.
"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 "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."
I believe that you guys were saying that the specification that "Unless specified in the rule itself..." asked for, is referring to "unit". Right?
That's how you know, when Counter-Attack says, "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...", it includes the IC.
I believe this is what people were saying so far. Right?
That it is specified in Counter-Attack, exactly the same as Stubborn specified it.
Counter-Attack: If a unit contains...
Fleet: A unit composed...
We know we include the IC because it is specified, as much as Stubborn specifies. I think this was the argument.
I am asking that if the "unit" is actually the specification in "Unless specified in the rule itself...", is there ever a rule that fails the specification?
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification to include the IC, there must be a case where the IC is not included.
I couldn't find a single special rule that failed the specification. So doesn't that mean the specification is not "unit", in Stubborn?
But that it is a clause?
Maybe this will help (maybe it will only confuse things, but I hope not)
Rules that affect the Unit (these rules are shared and would affect the unit and any attached ICs which count as part of the unit for all rules purposes)
1) Acute Senses: if a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule, and the unit arrives on a random table edge…
2) Adamantium Will: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule receives…
3) ATSKNF: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule automatically passes…
4) Blind: any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this rule must…
5) Brotherhood of psykers: a unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a psyker unit...
6) Crusader: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule…
7) Fear (being feared): If the test is failed, the unit succumbs to fear – all models in the unit have their…
8) Fearless: units containing one or more models with the fearless special rule automatically…
9) Hit & Run: a unit containing at least one model with this special rule that is locked in combat…
10) Monster Hunter: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls…
11) Night Vision: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores…
12) Outflank: during deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to…
13) Pinning: if a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must…
14) Preferred Enemy: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls…
15) Shrouded: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as…
16) Skilled Rider: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule automatically…
17) Slow and Purposeful: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot…
18) Soul Blaze: if a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule…
19) Split Fire: when a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different…
20) Stealth: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as…
21) Stubborn: when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes morale checks…
22) Tank Hunters: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed…
23) Zealot: a unit containing one or more models with the zealot special rule automatically passes…
Rules that affect individual models (these rules are not shared and only affect individual models or units composed entirely of models who have that special rule – ICs will not benefit from the unit’s rules or give these rules to their unit)
1) Armourbane: if a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule…
2) Concussive: a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule…
3) Daemon: models with the daemon special rule have a…
4) Eternal warrior: if a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound from an attack…
5) Fear (causing fear): at the start of each fight subphase, a unit in base contact with one or more enemy models that cause fear must take…
6) Fleet: a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining…
7) Fleshbane: if a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon with this special rule, they always…
8) Furious Charge: in a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds…
9) Hammer of Wrath: if a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional…
10) Instant Death: if a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule…
11) It Will Not Die: at the end of each of your turns, roll a D6 for each of your models with this special rule…
12) Missile Lock: a model with this special rule re-rolls failed to hit when shooting any weapon that has the…
13) Poisoned: if a model has the poisoned special rule, or is attacking with a weapon with the poisoned special rule, it always…
14) Precision shots: if a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit…
15) Precision strikes: if a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit…
16) Psyker: a model with this special rule is a psyker.
17) Rage: in a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it gains…
18) Rampage: at the start of any fight sub-phase, models with the rampage special rule…
19) Relentless: relentless models can shoot with heavy…
19) Rending: if a model has the rending special rule, or is attacking with a weapon that has…
21) Shred: if a model has the shred special rule, or is attacking with a weapon that has the shred special rule…
22) Skyfire: a model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires…
23) Smash: all of the close combat attacks of a model with this special rule…
24) Sniper: if a weapon has the sniper special rule or is fired by a model with the sniper special rule, and rolls a 6 to hit…
25) Specialist Weapon: a model fighting with this weapon does not receive…
26) Strikedown: any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds or passes one more saving throws against…
27) Two-handed: a model attacking with this weapon never…
28) Unwieldy: a model attacking with this weapon piles in…
29) Vector Dancer: a model with this special rule can make…
30) Vector Strike: when swooping or zooming, this model may…
Rules that affect the unit and the model in different ways (these rules are shared for the most part but also have effects specific to the model with the rule that are not shared)
1) 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…
2) Jink: when a unit with any models with the jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink… …if the unit jinks, all models with the jink special rule gain…
3) Move Through Cover: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra… …furthermore, a model with the move through cover special rule automatically passes…
4) Swarms: if, when allocating wounds to a unit with the swarms special rule, two or more models could be chosen as the closest enemy, the closest enemy is always… …if a model with the swarms special rule suffers an unsaved wound from… …a unit composed entirely of models with the swarm special rule is not slowed by…
Special Exceptions (this special rule is specifically stated not to benefit an IC that joins a unit with this rule, in spite of its wording stating “units that contain at least one model with this special rule” but does not state that a unit will not gain it from an attached IC)
1) Infiltrate: units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed last, after all other…
And some rules give a whole unit “model specific” rules that normally are not shared (these are rules like the space wolves’ Healing Balms which give Feel No Pain (6+) to the unit when Feel No Pain is normally a model specific rule – in this case, an attached IC would gain the special rule Feel no pain even though it is not normally shared)
1) Healing Balms: as long as the model with healing balms is alive, all models in his unit have feel no…
Finally, some rules give whole units “unit specific” rules which are shared by all members of the unit – including attached ICs (for some reason nobody ever questions that ICs benefit from these common rules – probably because the results are not as devastating. Please note that the example given is only for units with the space wolves faction but would clearly affect attached ICs if they had that faction)
1) Wolf Standard: any friendly units with the space wolves faction within 12” of the model bearing this banner re-roll failed…
Notice that this last one says “units” benefit from this rule. If an IC is attached, he would benefit. I'm curious if others agree with my assessment.
col_impact wrote:First things first Charistoph. Blabbering on about something I did not ask is dodging the question I asked.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
Wow, you really do not pay attention very well, do you? I presented a challenge to this posts ago and you do not respond. And in this case of what you quoted, I already addressed it in that post.
Like I said, you won't face it at all, so you just keep trying to reset the argument to a point you think you have control. I've left this behind long ago.
It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
col_impact wrote:It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
To REPEAT: I answered your question with no dodging:
Charistoph wrote:I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?
Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
See, not paying attention to the simple facts that make your case crap.
DeathstarMania wrote:Thanks for walking through it with me.
But you are talking about something a little different than what I'm talking about. I'll try to explain clearer.
"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 "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."
I believe that you guys were saying that the specification that "Unless specified in the rule itself..." asked for, is referring to "unit". Right?
That's how you know, when Counter-Attack says, "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...", it includes the IC.
I believe this is what people were saying so far. Right?
That it is specified in Counter-Attack, exactly the same as Stubborn specified it.
No, Counter-attack does not. You are getting stuck on this clause as a requirement, a clause which means nothing for an IC which does not have the rule, by the way.
Remember, the rule has to affect the unit. What does Counter-attack actually affect? "(E)very model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase".
The whole rule must be reviewed. Its conditions met, and the target of the rule identified. Counter-attack relies on a unit-based trigger: the unit getting charged, then targets the models with this special rule with the +1 Attack bonus.
Stubborn, though, states "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", and that "they" is the unit which has fulfilled the requirements and spoken of in the previous portion of the sentence.
Do you see the differences?
DeathstarMania wrote:I am asking that if the "unit" is actually the specification in "Unless specified in the rule itself...", is there ever a rule that fails the specification?
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification to include the IC, there must be a case where the IC is not included.
I couldn't find a single special rule that failed the specification. So doesn't that mean the specification is not "unit", in Stubborn?
But that it is a clause?
Can you actually identify a clause in Stubborn that actually confers anything outside of what I quoted above?
The one you thought Counter-attack would allow for and is matched in Stubborn, does not confer anything, but only indicates a level of possession.
Most of the Special Rules do not pass this muster. Most are only applied on the model itself, and never mention a unit. Some do mention the unit receiving a benefit, but has higher restrictions than Stubborn, aka Fleet which requires ALL the models in the unit to carry its special rule in order for the unit to use it.
Some Formation special rules call out units by name, which restricts units without that name from using it, but the IC joined to one of those named units is still just as much a part of that unit for these special rules as they are for Stubborn.
The IC Special Rules section is not just addressing those special rules which affect a unit, it is directed at ALL special rules, from Acute Senses to Zealot., whether they be a USR, a unit's unique rule like Hunters From Hyperspace, a Formation Special Rule like ...On Target, or a Command Benefit like Ideal Mission Commander. They are to be reviewed to see if they specifically include the other in their rules as in Stubborn.
Stubborn applies its benefit to the unit which fulfills its requirements. It really isn't more complicated than that, though some people think it should be or needs to be. This is not something you need a Rosetta Stone to uncover. It is there in plain and simple English.
col_impact wrote:It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
To REPEAT: I answered your question with no dodging:
The amazing thing about computers is that there is this copy paste functionality (ctl-C then ctl-V).
I am sure the thread won't mind if you copy and paste your old answer so everyone is perfectly clear what your answer is.
We wouldn't want people to think you are just trying yet again to dodge a simple question.
So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later.
So I will copy paste my request again.
To repeat.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
your request IS fulfilled by usind the BRB given example of Stubborn.
Its clear explained what the BRB means by requiring a specification.
You yourself cried out the Stubborn rule so many times n tried to use it four your point of view. so why don't you adress our side and show why we are wrong? it seems to be you are not able to do this and so you use other ways to shouting us down.
So adress this :
Spoiler:
Charistoph wrote:
I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?
Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
your request IS fulfilled by usind the BRB given example of Stubborn.
Its clear explained what the BRB means by requiring a specification.
You yourself cried out the Stubborn rule so many times n tried to use it four your point of view. so why don't you adress our side and show why we are wrong? it seems to be you are not able to do this and so you use other ways to shouting us down.
Stubborn is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parentheses is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later. It's an example and I am sure it's helpful but it's supplemental to the actual rule.
First things first.
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
So to clarify, your response is "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself", correct?
And, if I understand you correctly, we are just waiting for Charistoph to agree so we can move to the next step.
Nice try.
What you miss entirely is that we already are a lot further.
The rule DOES specify this. the example of Stubborn shows how a specification has to be done. Somehow you mannage to ignore the logic behind it and in addition you refuse to read what others write and so you declare any other reading than yours as invalid. Your logic is flawed. so yourr conlusions are flawed and the claim you make is not suported by real evidence.
Despite this you keep on claiming you are right. Once you held tight on the wording of stubborn itself. how comes that now Stubborn seems to be not important?
Its simple. the moment a rule aims at the unit as a whole any IC joined to that unit also benefits of a special rule. Sure there can be further conditions that need to be fulfilled that a IC can actualy use that rule. but in general joining a unit is all a IC have to do that a rule that aims at a unit as a whole includes the IC. Disprove this! you cant.
You could now mention "fleet" in a try to disprove but then : Fleet has further conditions so "fleet " is a invalid example.
In Fact there is not one single rule that aims at the unit as a whole that would exclude a IC in that unit WITHOUT further written conditions to it.
So where is your logic now? Disprove my point. WE run in circles. A special rule that aims at the whole unit includes any joined IC. because a joined IC is part of the unit for all rule purposes. The IC does not have to have that rule. sole the state of beeing a member of the unit is enough.
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
So to clarify, your response is "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself", correct?
And, if I understand you correctly, we are just waiting for Charistoph to agree so we can move to the next step.
Nice try.
What you miss entirely is that we already are a lot further.
The rule DOES specify this. the example of Stubborn shows how a specification has to be done. Somehow you mannage to ignore the logic behind it and in addition you refuse to read what others write and so you declare any other reading than yours as invalid. Your logic is flawed. so yourr conlusions are flawed and the claim you make is not suported by real evidence.
Despite this you keep on claiming you are right. Once you held tight on the wording of stubborn itself. how comes that now Stubborn seems to be not important?
Its simple. the moment a rule aims at the unit as a whole any IC joined to that unit also benefits of a special rule. Sure there can be further conditions that need to be fulfilled that a IC can actualy use that rule. but in general joining a unit is all a IC have to do that a rule that aims at a unit as a whole includes the IC. Disprove this! you cant.
You could now mention "fleet" in a try to disprove but then : Fleet has further conditions so "fleet " is a invalid example.
In Fact there is not one single rule that aims at the unit as a whole that would exclude a IC in that unit WITHOUT further written conditions to it.
So where is your logic now? Disprove my point. WE run in circles. A special rule that aims at the whole unit includes any joined IC. because a joined IC is part of the unit for all rule purposes. The IC does not have to have that rule. sole the state of beeing a member of the unit is enough.
Nekooni was able to recognize the grammar of the sentence and express what the rule is essentially telling us to do. The parentheses provides an example that supports (but does not overturn) the essential meaning of the sentence. I agree with his read since it's grammatically correct. He and I are following the actual grammar of the sentence. If you don't adhere to grammar then you are not following RAW.
So _ghost_
Consider this rule statement.
"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?
col_impact wrote: The amazing thing about computers is that there is this copy paste functionality (ctl-C then ctl-V).
Yeah, they are so much better at remembering than you seem to be. Also better at logic. And yes, I use the copy/paste function to keep your name in these quotes when I'm not using a phone.
col_impact wrote: I am sure the thread won't mind if you copy and paste your old answer so everyone is perfectly clear what your answer is.
Interesting that you did leave it out so you still won't have to face the facts directly.
col_impact wrote: We wouldn't want people to think you are just trying yet again to dodge a simple question.
And you're projecting again...
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
col_impact wrote: Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later.
Ah, but leaving out Stubborn is pointless since it IS part of the actual sentence. Leaving it out leaves out a lot of context of application. But like I keep saying, you won't address it since your case is crap if you actually address it honestly.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
Odd. that seems to coincide with what I said about Stubborn that you chopped out. What a coincidence...
So, are you ready to address what the rules actually state, including Stubborn, or will you just continue to claim I am dodging so you can dodge out of addressing it honestly, again?
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy 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."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
Brother Ramses wrote: I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
But that might just make too much sense.
Nobody is saying not to include the ". . . (as in Stubborn) . . . ". I am insisting however that that bit in the parentheses is treated as information in parentheses. "(As in Stubborn) . . . " is supplemental information and Stubborn is merely an example provided for clarification of the rule.
Examining the rule without the parentheses is a way of enforcing that we don't let the information inside the parentheses overturn the information outside the parentheses.
Charistoph has got a lot of revising to do to his argument because he has butchered the grammar of the rule.
However, if we adhere to the grammar of the rule we know that . . .
1) Special rules do not confer automatically from the unit to the IC (and vice versa)
2) There are special rules that confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
3) "[That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the unit's special rule to actually confer to the IC. "[That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the IC's special rule to actually confer to the unit.
4) Stubborn is an example of (2). Stubborn is a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). Stubborn is not the only example.
5) Stubborn meets the requirement in (3). That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character is specified in the Stubborn rule itself. That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit is also specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy 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."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
Yes, I am relying on a multitude of rules in consideration with this, and not only relying on one phrase. This rule does not operate in a vacuum. Indeed, access to this rule is reliant on this rule telling us to treat the IC as a member of the unit. We do not get to ignore the rest of the rules just because you are feeling petty or a desirous to be overly restrictive. If a rule directs its benefits or its rules toward a unit with the IC, that IC is as specifically addressed as it is when the unit is shot or Runs.
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
Oh, please stop. You just don't want to address it because you know it makes your argument crap, especially when you used to rely on it so much before. It is only when I demonstrated that it doesn't work the way you want it to because of its grammar do you desperately try to ignore it. The portion in parentheses is as much a part of the sentence as the rest as it adds additional context. The sentence structure cannot rely on it, but the idea the sentence is carrying may rely on it to provide clarity or context.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy 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."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
Yes, I am relying on a multitude of rules in consideration with this, and not only relying on one phrase. This rule does not operate in a vacuum. Indeed, access to this rule is reliant on this rule telling us to treat the IC as a member of the unit. We do not get to ignore the rest of the rules just because you are feeling petty or a desirous to be overly restrictive. If a rule directs its benefits or its rules toward a unit with the IC, that IC is as specifically addressed as it is when the unit is shot or Runs.
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
Oh, please stop. You just don't want to address it because you know it makes your argument crap, especially when you used to rely on it so much before. It is only when I demonstrated that it doesn't work the way you want it to because of its grammar do you desperately try to ignore it. The portion in parentheses is as much a part of the sentence as the rest as it adds additional context. The sentence structure cannot rely on it, but the idea the sentence is carrying may rely on it to provide clarity or context.
So the parenthetical is not important to the structure of the sentence, but that doesn't mean it is not important to the topic of the sentence.
Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
Putting this rule in to play requires relying on something not specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements for putting the rule in play and do not deny their place.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
Because it doesn't actually confer. Its own language and grammar does not support this as a literal event. How it "confers" is by placing its benefit on the unit which includes the IC. This is a virtual conferance via its benefits. That is what it says.
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
Putting this rule in to play requires relying on something not specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements for putting the rule in play and do not deny their place.
Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
Because it doesn't actually confer. Its own language and grammar does not support this as a literal event. How it "confers" is by placing its benefit on the unit which includes the IC. This is a virtual conferance via its benefits. That is what it says.
Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Basically, Charistoph, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
So because Stubborn is the example of a Special Rule that confers, do we hold it as the template for all other tests or do we look at in context with the Special Rules that do not confer to an IC and then apply that rationale to unit Special Rules that do not fall under the vernacular of the generic Special Rules in the BRB? Afterall, the Special Rules in the book is not an exhaustive list of unit Special Rules.
Brother Ramses wrote: I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
But that might just make too much sense.
Nobody is saying not to include the ". . . (as in Stubborn) . . . ". I am insisting however that that bit in the parentheses is treated as information in parentheses. "(As in Stubborn) . . . " is supplemental information and Stubborn is merely an example provided for clarification of the rule.
Examining the rule without the parentheses is a way of enforcing that we don't let the information inside the parentheses overturn the information outside the parentheses.
Charistoph has got a lot of revising to do to his argument because he has butchered the grammar of the rule.
However, if we adhere to the grammar of the rule we know that . . .
1) Special rules do not confer automatically from the unit to the IC (and vice versa)
2) There are special rules that confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
3) "[That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the unit's special rule to actually confer to the IC. "[That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the IC's special rule to actually confer to the unit.
4) Stubborn is an example of (2). Stubborn is a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). Stubborn is not the only example.
5) Stubborn meets the requirement in (3). That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character is specified in the Stubborn rule itself. That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit is also specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
to 4) so what in Stubborn does specificaly include ICs? name that part! and a hint : its not the "if at least one model in the unit"
to 5) and again. You fail to adress clearly whyt part of the Stubborn rule qualifies as thee specific including of IC's
You will get nowhere arguing with them - as shown, they goal-shift everytime their argument is proven wrong
Stubborn does not directly specify the IC, yet we know it works. If Stubborn works, so does the rule in question here. Of course, Col will NEVER admit that...
col_impact wrote: Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
Incorrect. I am not allowed to ignore rules already set in place until I am directed to do so. Your personal views that rules operate in a vacuum are unsupportable and pointless, and therefore irrelevant.
Charistoph wrote: Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Incorrect. I am following the rules as their language directs. That is RAW. Your own personal view of vacuum rule occupancy is irrelevant and does not need to be included or reviewed. Especially when you start ignoring those rules only when you are demonstrated that they do not support you. You have kept trimming your argument down and cutting out portions of the rules and you expect use to cut out whole sections of the rulebook when addressing a rule when not otherwise directed to.
Basically, ddischarged_impact, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
col_impact wrote: Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
Incorrect. I am not allowed to ignore rules already set in place until I am directed to do so. Your personal views that rules operate in a vacuum are unsupportable and pointless, and therefore irrelevant.
Charistoph wrote: Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Incorrect. I am following the rules as their language directs. That is RAW. Your own personal view of vacuum rule occupancy is irrelevant and does not need to be included or reviewed. Especially when you start ignoring those rules only when you are demonstrated that they do not support you. You have kept trimming your argument down and cutting out portions of the rules and you expect use to cut out whole sections of the rulebook when addressing a rule when not otherwise directed to.
Basically, ddischarged_impact, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Brilliant retort there.
The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
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.
We must adhere to both of those RAW statements.
If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
Huh now Stubborn becomes a important example of how rules work again? i thought you told us that this is not the important part of the rules. i'm getting confused.
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.HOW does Stubborn this? WHAT in Stubborn qualifies to be the specific part?
We must adhere to both of those RAW statements.
If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
There are several posts that addresses the whole solution to the problem
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
What again is your actual Argument and therefor what are the consequences of your argument?
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.
col_impact wrote: So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
You have shown nothing, liar. You just keep repeating the same rules with misquotes and asking the same question. You will address nothing that counters your case.
I have not re-written anything, liar. Show an example of how I have re-written Stubborn. You do know how to copy and paste, and I'm pretty sure you know how to multi-quote, too.
All I have done is review the actual words and phrases used in these rules and how they relate to the subject at hand. That sure sounds like RAW to me.
col_impact wrote: And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Projecting again...
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
So why do you want to ignore it again? Oh, right, analysis of this rule proves you have no case.
col_impact wrote: 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.
So are you actually going to address how this does this with the actual rule? Or are you just going to use your local version of grammar to hand-wave it away? Again.
col_impact wrote: If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
Already proven incorrect through an analysis of both sentences based on the full rules network and not the vacuum that you insist we address it under.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
No, no, no. You do not get to address a direct challenge by just starting your argument over without fleshing anything out. Stick to what is asked of you.
col_impact wrote: So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
You have shown nothing, liar. You just keep repeating the same rules with misquotes and asking the same question. You will address nothing that counters your case.
I have not re-written anything, liar. Show an example of how I have re-written Stubborn. You do know how to copy and paste, and I'm pretty sure you know how to multi-quote, too.
All I have done is review the actual words and phrases used in these rules and how they relate to the subject at hand. That sure sounds like RAW to me.
col_impact wrote: And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Projecting again...
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
So why do you want to ignore it again? Oh, right, analysis of this rule proves you have no case.
col_impact wrote: 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.
So are you actually going to address how this does this with the actual rule? Or are you just going to use your local version of grammar to hand-wave it away? Again.
col_impact wrote: If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
Already proven incorrect through an analysis of both sentences based on the full rules network and not the vacuum that you insist we address it under.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
No, no, no. You do not get to address a direct challenge by just starting your argument over without fleshing anything out. Stick to what is asked of you.
Charistoph,
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.
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.
Im sorry this is babbling.
1. Yes i agree that Stubborn is a example.
2. Yes i also agree that the rule itself needs to be so specific that IC's are included.
3. I ask you why stubborn is a example. what in stubborn includes the IC somehow you FAIL do read and response to point 3.
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.
Im sorry this is babbling.
1. Yes i agree that Stubborn is a example.
2. Yes i also agree that the rule itself needs to be so specific that IC's are included.
3. I ask you why stubborn is a example. what in stubborn includes the IC somehow you FAIL do read and response to point 3.
To clarify, you agree that the BRB is telling us . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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
Before proceeding I want to make sure you and I are on the same page as to what the BRB is telling us. It's plain as day what the BRB is telling us. But some arguments have decided to flat out ignore and/or rewrite what the BRB is telling us.
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.
Im sorry this is babbling.
1. Yes i agree that Stubborn is a example.
2. Yes i also agree that the rule itself needs to be so specific that IC's are included.
3. I ask you why stubborn is a example. what in stubborn includes the IC somehow you FAIL do read and response to point 3.
To clarify, you agree that the BRB is telling us . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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
Before proceeding I want to make sure you and I are on the same page as to what the BRB is telling us. It's plain as day what the BRB is telling us. But some arguments have decided to flat out ignore and/or rewrite what the BRB is telling us.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
col_impact wrote: Nekooni was able to recognize the grammar of the sentence and express what the rule is essentially telling us to do. The parentheses provides an example that supports (but does not overturn) the essential meaning of the sentence. I agree with his read since it's grammatically correct. He and I are following the actual grammar of the sentence. If you don't adhere to grammar then you are not following RAW.
May I ask why you haven't responded to what I provided as an argument - in neither of the two active threads? It makes most of the discussion in here rather pointless, unless I am mistaken.
And if you ask me yet another copy&paste question in lieu of an actual response I swear a kitten might die somewhere. Not by my hand and not because of me, but it might happen.Maybe.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
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.
See. Attempting to reset the argument without addressing any of the other challenges. You expect me to follow through, but you have not followed through to one single challenge on this. Instead you go back to resetting the argument. Tailor your message better.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
col_impact: what is this? we are STILL at the very same point.... no need to re-agreeing with you there . its already been done. do you realy want to spent the rest of the day asking me the same over n over again? come on. we are no toddlers! we don't need to redo thing just we can do it. carry on. make the next step.
Once again. What in Stubborn includes a IC by the written words?
col_impact wrote: Nekooni was able to recognize the grammar of the sentence and express what the rule is essentially telling us to do. The parentheses provides an example that supports (but does not overturn) the essential meaning of the sentence. I agree with his read since it's grammatically correct. He and I are following the actual grammar of the sentence. If you don't adhere to grammar then you are not following RAW.
May I ask why you haven't responded to what I provided as an argument - in neither of the two active threads? It makes most of the discussion in here rather pointless, unless I am mistaken.
And if you ask me yet another copy&paste question in lieu of an actual response I swear a kitten might die somewhere. Not by my hand and not because of me, but it might happen.Maybe.
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.
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.
See. Attempting to reset the argument without addressing any of the other challenges. You expect me to follow through, but you have not followed through to one single challenge on this. Instead you go back to resetting the argument. Tailor your message better.
I have proven you are house ruling. So at this point you are not contributing to a discussion of the RAW.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
col_impact: what is this? we are STILL at the very same point.... no need to re-agreeing with you there . its already been done. do you realy want to spent the rest of the day asking me the same over n over again? come on. we are no toddlers! we don't need to redo thing just we can do it. carry on. make the next step.
Once again. What in Stubborn includes a IC by the written words?
I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
col_impact wrote: Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Incorrect. This is a requirement. This is not providing anything to anyone. Nor is the term "independent character" actually specifically used. I have pointed this out already, but you ignored it and tried to reset the argument. That it indirectly includes the IC in this condition is only available if we consider the rule of, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." "Contains" also does not grant anything, but indicates possession or something having already been granted.
No, the place that the actual conferring comes in is later, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", where "they" is the unit mentioned before that has met all of those qualifications listed before this portion of the sentence, and the action is applied to "the(m)"
This phrase is also used in Counter-attack, but that would put a lie to the instructions in the list that only directs "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack." So does this rule then lie? Or is your assertion above inaccurate? Or will you just attempt to reset the argument? Again.
col_impact wrote: Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Incorrect. This is a requirement. This is not providing anything to anyone. Nor is the term "independent character" actually specifically used. I have pointed this out already, but you ignored it and tried to reset the argument. That it indirectly includes the IC in this condition is only available if we consider the rule of, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." "Contains" also does not grant anything, but indicates possession or something having already been granted.
No, the place that the actual conferring comes in is later, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", where "they" is the unit mentioned before that has met all of those qualifications listed before this portion of the sentence, and the action is applied to "the(m)"
This phrase is also used in Counter-attack, but that would put a lie to the instructions in the list that only directs "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack." So does this rule then lie? Or is your assertion above inaccurate? Or will you just attempt to reset the argument? Again.
Incorrect.
You are not really participating in this discussion on RAW since you have gone off on your own with your personal house rule.
So this is a discussion about RAW and I will provide a clarification on the points you bring up for the benefit of _ghost_ and others, but you can disregard since you are working on your house rule that ignores the IC Special Rules rule.
####################################
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
The IC Special Rules rule has declared that unless specified in the rule itself the special rules of the unit do not confer to the attached IC.
So the 'counts as rule' is not going to apply for two reasons.
First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Stubborn meets the requirement set forth by the IC Special Rules rule and the special rule is conferred.
The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
You are not really participating in this discussion on RAW since you have gone off on your own with your personal house rule.
So this is a discussion about RAW and I will provide a clarification on the points you bring up for the benefit of _ghost_ and others, but you can disregard since you are working on your house rule that ignores the IC Special Rules rule.
So you FINALLY start to address it after all this time, and you cannot resist sniping even further? Wow, just wow. You have already demonstrated that you would rather accuse people of "cheating" the system by "misusing" grammar than actually address the situation. But I guess you just cannot stop.
col_impact wrote: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
Correct it is A clause specified in the rule itself. Can you solidly identify this as THE clause? Going by the standards you insist I follow, we cannot use anything from the IC Special Rules section. Not that would help either, because IT doesn't specifically say what we use, either.
col_impact wrote: 'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
Yes, and no... The "unit" before "contains" would include attached models (good to see you finally admit it), but for an IC without it, it would not. And yes, it WOULD require the "counts as" rule since without it the IC would be no more part of the unit than the Transport sitting on the side.
AND "contains" still does not actually GIVE anything, it is a verb that indicates possession already existing, you know: "have or hold", "be made up of", or "consist of".
So THAT cannot be the proper clause using actual words and grammar used in the english language.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
Sorry, that is an assumption without any rules support, not to mention, if we use YOUR standards which you are trying to hold me to, we cannot use it to address Stubborn's qualifications. And it does not say it overrides anything but the conferring of special rules between IC and unit. The concept that it overrides "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is an addition made by you and not in any words, phrases, language, or grammar of the section you are referencing. Please try again.
col_impact wrote: First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Really? Could you highlight exactly where it specifically states this? Not your assumptions as you outlined above, but where the words literally appear, "an IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of special rules", please.
col_impact wrote: Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
Again, could you highlight the exact language an IC is referenced in the Stubborn special rule?
col_impact wrote: There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Actually it doesn't meet the standards of specifically conferring the special rule to the IC/unit, all it does is allow for it to be included by establishing an identity of the target, and that identity would include the IC/unit in its scope. That's it. Nothing actually happens in this referenced phrase.
It is only when we are told that "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers" that something happens, something is given. In this case what is given is permission to ignore. This permission is given to "they" who have fulfilled the qualifications.
Don't get me wrong, this phrase you love IS important in establishing the identity of the IC and unit combined, but by itself it means absolutely nothing, as demonstrated by Counter-attack's language and grammar.
col_impact wrote: The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
Just incorporation isn't the goal, though. The rule must specifically confer itself to the other half of the IC/unit combination, and this phrase alone does not do that with its grammar and language. Something else is needed and that is the actual language which talks about an action, like "ignore".
col_impact wrote: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
Correct it is A clause specified in the rule itself. Can you solidly identify this as THE clause? Going by the standards you insist I follow, we cannot use anything from the IC Special Rules section. Not that would help either, because IT doesn't specifically say what we use, either.
It is the clause that specifically extends the recipients of the effect of Stubborn to attached models (ie the IC) which is how the BRB uses confer. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall between the unit and IC in terms of special rules. This clause breaks down that wall by rejoining the unit and attached models as recipients of the effects of Stubborn.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: 'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
Yes, and no... The "unit" before "contains" would include attached models (good to see you finally admit it), but for an IC without it, it would not. And yes, it WOULD require the "counts as" rule since without it the IC would be no more part of the unit than the Transport sitting on the side.
AND "contains" still does not actually GIVE anything, it is a verb that indicates possession already existing, you know: "have or hold", "be made up of", or "consist of".
So THAT cannot be the proper clause using actual words and grammar used in the english language.
Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" is not required and in fact that rule is not wholly in effect since the IC Special Rules rule has specifically declared exceptions with regards to special rules of the unit the IC attaches to. Only the minimal "joined" is required and the IC Special Rules rule already acknowledges the facticity of the IC joining the unit ("when an Independent Character joins a unit . . ."). A model joined to a unit is contained in a unit. The IC Special Rules rule has placed a wall by default between the unit and the IC as far as extending the effect of special rules on the IC and this clause breaches that wall.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
Sorry, that is an assumption without any rules support, not to mention, if we use YOUR standards which you are trying to hold me to, we cannot use it to address Stubborn's qualifications. And it does not say it overrides anything but the conferring of special rules between IC and unit. The concept that it overrides "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is an addition made by you and not in any words, phrases, language, or grammar of the section you are referencing. Please try again.
The IC Special Rules rule specifically declares that the IC does not count as part of the unit for all purposes in the case of special rules. In the case of special rules you follow the IC Special Rules rule. Special rules of the unit are set to not confer to the IC by default. There needs to be something "specified in the rule itself" for the special rule of the unit to confer to the IC. So clearly the IC is not counting as part of the unit for all rule purposes in the case of the unit's special rules.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Really? Could you highlight exactly where it specifically states this? Not your assumptions as you outlined above, but where the words literally appear, "an IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of special rules", please.
Easy. Just read the rule. The IC Special Rules rule provides exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of the unit's special rules. They do not confer unless something "specified in the rule itself" confers them 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.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
Again, could you highlight the exact language an IC is referenced in the Stubborn special rule?
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
An exact referencing of the IC is not required. Only a specified incorporation of the special rule to attached models in the rule itself. The IC is an attached model. The clause logically incorporates attached models and is in the rule itself. The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Actually it doesn't meet the standards of specifically conferring the special rule to the IC/unit, all it does is allow for it to be included by establishing an identity of the target, and that identity would include the IC/unit in its scope. That's it. Nothing actually happens in this referenced phrase.
It is only when we are told that "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers" that something happens, something is given. In this case what is given is permission to ignore. This permission is given to "they" who have fulfilled the qualifications.
Don't get me wrong, this phrase you love IS important in establishing the identity of the IC and unit combined, but by itself it means absolutely nothing, as demonstrated by Counter-attack's language and grammar.
My argument has no problem with Counter-attack. There is nothing magic about the clause and there are plenty of variants of the clause. It can be freely modified by additional logic.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
Just incorporation isn't the goal, though. The rule must specifically confer itself to the other half of the IC/unit combination, and this phrase alone does not do that with its grammar and language. Something else is needed and that is the actual language which talks about an action, like "ignore".
Nope. The clause extends who receives the effect of Stubborn onto attached models and that is all that is required by the IC Special Rules rule. The IC is an attached model. And it's fully "specified in the rule itself". The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Re-incorporation is exactly all that is required. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall in between the unit and IC in terms of who receives the effect of Stubborn. Now, by virtue of the clause, that wall is gone.
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Actually you miss a very important point here:
The part you quoted is on of the conditions that are necessary or that have to be fulfilled that the unit may use Stubborn. I agree with you that this includes any IC's joined to the unit so that it would be enough if only a IC has that rule. So eigther the IC, the Unit or both can have Stubborn and so the unit as a while could use it. So now we could be done right?
i say no!
The reason is that a IC is a member of any unit that it has joined. So:
Unit moves. IC moved as member of the unit
Unit shoots. IC shoots as member of the unit
...
all of this actions are on the unit level and only then each of them breaks down to the individual models in the unit.
So how do you col_impact exclude a IC from rules that aim at the whole unit? without excluding IC specificaly?
then this happens when you claim that stuff like this Wulfen Special Rule that only reffer to the unit.?
You have not the permission to exclude a IC by such cases. and in addition this is not a case of confering rules.
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Actually you miss a very important point here:
The part you quoted is on of the conditions that are necessary or that have to be fulfilled that the unit may use Stubborn. I agree with you that this includes any IC's joined to the unit so that it would be enough if only a IC has that rule. So eigther the IC, the Unit or both can have Stubborn and so the unit as a while could use it. So now we could be done right?
i say no!
The reason is that a IC is a member of any unit that it has joined. So:
Unit moves. IC moved as member of the unit
Unit shoots. IC shoots as member of the unit
...
all of this actions are on the unit level and only then each of them breaks down to the individual models in the unit.
So how do you col_impact exclude a IC from rules that aim at the whole unit? without excluding IC specificaly?
then this happens when you claim that stuff like this Wulfen Special Rule that only reffer to the unit.?
You have not the permission to exclude a IC by such cases. and in addition this is not a case of confering rules.
Well for sure the Wulfen special rule is not conferred to the IC. The IC Special Rules rule is simply not being satisifed by the Wulfen special rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
A separate issue entirely is how exactly that affects an attached IC in actual practice.
I have already expressed on page 1 of this thread my views on the consequences of the rule not conferring to the IC.
so just to get you right. you agree that rules that aim at the whole unit automaticaly include a IC that joined this unit?
Just by the logic that if a ic joins a unit is a member of that unit for all rule purposes?
_ghost_ wrote: so just to get you right. you agree that rules that aim at the whole unit automaticaly include a IC that joined this unit?
Just by the logic that if a ic joins a unit is a member of that unit for all rule purposes?
Nope. Not at all. The IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the rule that "if an IC joins a unit it is a member of that unit for all rule purposes". Special rules do not automatically confer to the IC.
This is explicitly stated in the rules and you must adhere to it and for special rules to confer it must be satisfied.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
This is a permissive ruleset.
Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.
However, per the Characters and Assault rule the IC is allowed to charge along with the unit.
So the IC gets to charge along with the unit but the unit loses the re-roll of the charge distance since the IC does not benefit from Bounding Leap as the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model, which in this case is a model with a single roll for the charge distance.
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
And you're still dodging questions...............
Why do I keep going with this? I am resolving rules issues with RAW.
So if you are more interested in house rules then what I am posting in this thread won't be of interest to you.
_ghost_ wrote: You dodged my question. make a general statement!
You are using "affect" loosely. Provide example cases.
Actually no i am not using it loosely.
What happens if any given rule affect the whole unit? the moment a rule mentions the term unit this includes also a joined IC. so tell me what happens? make a general statement
_ghost_ wrote: You dodged my question. make a general statement!
You are using "affect" loosely. Provide example cases.
Actually no i am not using it loosely.
What happens if any given rule affect the whole unit? the moment a rule mentions the term unit this includes also a joined IC. so tell me what happens? make a general statement
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the mere mention of the term unit does not automatically confer the unit's special rule to the IC. The IC is not part of the unit for all rules purposes in the case of unit's special rules conferring to the IC. The IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule from the unit to the IC. Stubborn is mentioned as an example of a special rule that meets this requirement. The IC Special Rules rule is in the BRB and we must adhere to it.
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.
_ghost_ wrote: So you mentionet several things that do not happen... but stil lfil to tell me what happens if a rule affects a unit. interesting.
It;s best to provide examples. I would not want to provide an answer that overgeneralizes. "Affect" can mean a lot of things and I cannot read your mind.
col_impact wrote: It is the clause that specifically extends the recipients of the effect of Stubborn to attached models (ie the IC) which is how the BRB uses confer. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall between the unit and IC in terms of special rules. This clause breaks down that wall by rejoining the unit and attached models as recipients of the effects of Stubborn.
Actually, no, it isn't. All it does is allow any model in the unit who has it to allow the unit to receive the benefit. This is fully fulfilled by the the rest of the sentence directing its benefit to "they" and that "they" being partly defined by that clause and the other part by the "takes Morale checks or Pinning Tests". If either clause is not fulfilled, "they", meaning the unit as a whole including joined ICs, do not receive the benefit of "ignor(ing) any negative Leadership modifiers."
It doesn't restore any broken down connection between IC and unit, because the IC is never specifically addressed. It is only by operating under a previous rule and condition, i.e. the "counts as part of the unit" are we allowed to consider it. If the IC didn't "count as part of the unit" it could not be that "one model with this special rule".
For some reason, you also think rules can and do operate in a vacuum from the rest of the rulebook. Care to explain why?
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" is not required and in fact that rule is not wholly in effect since the IC Special Rules rule has specifically declared exceptions with regards to special rules of the unit the IC attaches to. Only the minimal "joined" is required and the IC Special Rules rule already acknowledges the facticity of the IC joining the unit ("when an Independent Character joins a unit . . ."). A model joined to a unit is contained in a unit. The IC Special Rules rule has placed a wall by default between the unit and the IC as far as extending the effect of special rules on the IC and this clause breaches that wall.
Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IS required since the IC is not mentioned in Stubborn. In fact, it comes from the very same section that tells us HOW to join the IC. You have not indicated how we ignore one sentence while at the same time using the rest of the section to justify this without specific direction.
What you have said is that the IC Special Rules section separates the IC from the unit for the purposes of Special Rule. You have not properly demonstrated HOW the IC Special Rules section separates the IC from the unit in this case, though. Nor have you demonstrated how Stubborn returns it back again with specifically stating it. Nor have you demonstrated why we have to pay attention to the IC Special Rules section when working Stubborn when the IC Special Rules section does not have to pay attention to the last sentence of the IC Joining and Leaving a Unit section.
In short, you have redefined a rule to fit your own preconceptions and added to one rule while ignoring others to complete this judgement.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule specifically declares that the IC does not count as part of the unit for all purposes in the case of special rules. In the case of special rules you follow the IC Special Rules rule. Special rules of the unit are set to not confer to the IC by default. There needs to be something "specified in the rule itself" for the special rule of the unit to confer to the IC. So clearly the IC is not counting as part of the unit for all rule purposes in the case of the unit's special rules.
Incorrect. The IC Special Rules say that the rules do not confer from one to another, NOT that the IC does not count as part of the unit. You are changing the rule to fit your perspective and does not coincide with your assertion that you operate under Rules As Written.
The IC Special Rules section states:
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.
Taken literally, all it states that the unless otherwise specified in the rule itself, the unit does not give, grant, or bestow its special rules to the Independent Character, and vice versa.
Care to highlight where it says ICs are NOT to count as part of the unit or that separation reoccurs? Note, in order to treat "confer" as anything other than "grant or bestow" or any other term used in the quote, you must also demonstrate that it is defined or used as such somewhere else in the rulebook as well.
Do note that this:
col_impact wrote: 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.
Does not count since it does not have anything written that actually states that without a term change being established before hand.
col_impact wrote: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
An exact referencing of the IC is not required. Only a specified incorporation of the special rule to attached models in the rule itself. The IC is an attached model. The clause logically incorporates attached models and is in the rule itself. The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Ah, so an exact referencing is not required, even though, "Unless specified in the rule itself" is the requirement? Do you understand what "specify" means? Care to actually explain with proper english how one can "specify" without being specific?
And I do agree with you that the exact reference is not required, I have stated as such before, it just requires an already established reference point to bring it back together. This is a standard pattern in mathematics, programming, instructions, and game rules. "Contains at least one model with this special rule" does not apply in a case where we are looking at a model WITHOUT that special rule but is not considered part of the unit, but rather looking at the unit that already has it and only considers all the models that are part of the unit in its consideration.
In short, the unity between IC and unit must be established BEFORE looking at "contains at least one model with this special rule" as that phrase holds zero capacity to establishing unity, only level of possession. The only way that could be done is that the IC's Joining and Leaving a Unit section is in full force and the IC Special Rules section did not separate the connection.
col_impact wrote: My argument has no problem with Counter-attack. There is nothing magic about the clause and there are plenty of variants of the clause. It can be freely modified by additional logic.
Care to add more than, "no it doesn't have a problem"? Do you think a Black Templars Chaplain will gain a Bonus +1 Attack when Charged while it is joined to a Space Wolves Grey Hunter Pack (which has Counter-attack)? Why or why not?
col_impact wrote: Nope. The clause extends who receives the effect of Stubborn onto attached models and that is all that is required by the IC Special Rules rule. The IC is an attached model. And it's fully "specified in the rule itself". The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Re-incorporation is exactly all that is required. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall in between the unit and IC in terms of who receives the effect of Stubborn. Now, by virtue of the clause, that wall is gone.
Incorrect. The IC Special Rules section phrase:
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.
Does not require reincorporation to occur, especially since separation is never actually defined here, it literally states that rules are not conferred unless specified. So, the rule must state that it is giving its rule (or at least its benefit as demonstrated by Stubborn) to the included IC (or to the unit from the IC) by some method.
_ghost_ wrote: So you mentionet several things that do not happen... but stil lfil to tell me what happens if a rule affects a unit. interesting.
It;s best to provide examples. I would not want to provide an answer that overgeneralizes. "Affect" can mean a lot of things and I cannot read your mind.
I am sure you can provide examples.
You do not need to read my mind. We are both talking bout what in your mind.
So i want to know YOUR answer to this. How does this in general work in YOUR mind. thats it.
What happens when a rule affects a unit.?
The moment a unit is the target of a effect or action a IC is included. right?
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
We know two things.
1) We know for certain that special rules are not conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by default, unless there is something "specified in the rule itself".
2) We know for certain that in the example of Stubborn, that the unit that has Stubborn special rule is able to confer the special rule to the IC by virtue of something "specified in the rule itself".
So right off the bat any interpretation that would say that Stubborn does not actually confer can be filed away as a house rule. [Have you revised your argument yet Charistoph or is it still a house rule?]
So confer is important. The Stubborn rule must confer from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not have Stubborn in our interpretation in order for our interpretation to coincide with what the BRB is saying and for us to have a RAW interpretation.
And we must be able to isolate something "specified in the rule itself" that when taken away prevents the unit with Stubborn from conferring Stubborn to the IC.
So what does confer mean?
Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
So in the case of a rule like Stubborn, the power or ability of Stubborn is simply the ability to ignore any negative Leadership modifiers when taking morale or pinning checks. Again, super straightforward.
So all that the IC Special Rules rule is saying is that an IC that joins a unit with Stubborn does not get to have the Stubborn ability of the unit by default.
If the IC Special Rules rule did not exist then the IC would get the Stubborn ability simply by virtue of "count[ing] as part of the unit for all rules purposes" since the "counts as . . ." rule would be in the position of setting the default handling of special rules of the unit with an IC attached.
However, the IC Special Rules rule does indeed exist and that rule provides exception to the "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and sets it so that the IC "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes minus the purpose of conferring special rules" so an IC attached to a unit with Stubborn does not get the ability of Stubborn by default.
In order to get the Stubborn ability there must be something "specified in the rule itself".
What wording in Stubborn confers the special rule to an IC in the unit?
This is pretty simple to determine. All we need to do is examine the rule of Stubborn and remove a portion of the rule away to the point that it will only confer to the entity that originally has it (whether unit or IC) before the IC joins the unit.
If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
However, if Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
If someone wants to contest my RAW interpretation, they should focus on providing a better RAW alternative and provide the following . . .
1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
If you cannot provide all 3 then you have a house rule and therefore do not have a RAW argument worth considering in my opinion.
I don't have anything against house rules. I am just only interested in RAW arguments.
col_impact wrote: Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
This part is inaccurate, and it is affecting the rest of your interpretation. You are either adding words or emplacing your own interpretation upon it.
(with object) Grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right): moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her
A benefit CAN be the subject of the verb "confer", but it can be something else. The main definition is not including the parenthetical, but using it as a reference point.
So, in use with the sentence in question, it translates as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit."
col_impact wrote: If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
Incorrect. The IC is still being represented under the list of "a unit" because under the real phrase the IC is still represented under the exact same phrase, as I will demonstrate shortly.
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.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
IF we are looking at an IC without the rule and a unit with the rule, there is zero literal difference in reference between "a unit" and "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
Can you show how "that contains at least one model with this special rule" translates to "including the Independent Character that does NOT have this special rule"?
From what I can see: "independent character" is not used, it is asking for a model WITH this special rule, and it is asking for possession via "contains" rather than bringing other things in by including them.
So, this phrase completely fails as a requirement using standard grammar for the purpose of being an example of allowing a unit to "confer" one of its special rules to a joined IC. The only place the IC can be found in this entire phrase is just the beginning, "a unit".
Keep in mind, though, this phrase DOES work in the other direction in qualifying the unit to be receiving the benefit of the special rule from the IC. Remember, this phrase is only establishing a level of possession requirement for the rule. If the unit does not have it on its datasheet, an IC with this special rule joining it will then satisfy the "contains one model with this special rule" condition written in Stubborn and a host of other USRs.
col_impact wrote: If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
Umm.... no it does not because you start with flawed concepts to begin with and then ignore what it literally states in favor of using an odd form of literary math to justify your position which requires an assumption that your position is correct first to be accurate.
col_impact wrote: 1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
Maybe if you actually linked which dictionary you used that might work better. More importantly, you ignore numerous other dictionary definitions along the way to satisfy it.
col_impact wrote: 2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
Your two versions fails because 1) your original starting premise is false and 2) specifically written is not based on literary math to come to a conclusion based on what is not there in the difference.
col_impact wrote: 3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
Already demonstrated and which you have not properly addressed using the proper rules of grammar. You just dismiss it claiming I don't know what I am talking about. Considering what I just covered above, you may want to review that.
col_impact wrote: Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
This part is inaccurate, and it is affecting the rest of your interpretation. You are either adding words or emplacing your own interpretation upon it.
(with object) Grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right): moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her
A benefit CAN be the subject of the verb "confer", but it can be something else. The main definition is not including the parenthetical, but using it as a reference point.
So, in use with the sentence in question, it translates as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit."
Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
I know this stuff is mystifying to you and your argument has the bizarre conclusion that Stubborn does not actually confer - which goes directly against what the BRB is telling us - and you are heavily invested in your house rule argument.
So let's zero in on it.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
I guess you have some revising of your argument to do and my RAW argument still stands.
What wording in Stubborn confers the special rule to an IC in the unit?
This is pretty simple to determine. All we need to do is examine the rule of Stubborn and remove a portion of the rule away to the point that it will only confer to the entity that originally has it (whether unit or IC) before the IC joins the unit.
If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
However, if Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
If someone wants to contest my RAW interpretation, they should focus on providing a better RAW alternative and provide the following . . .
1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
If you cannot provide all 3 then you have a house rule and therefore do not have a RAW argument worth considering in my opinion.
I don't have anything against house rules. I am just only interested in RAW arguments.
So as long as the rule has the wording "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule..." then the rule confers?
"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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
I disagree. since i use as much text as col_impact uses...
Although we have no explicit wording on how the confering is done we can use logic and the rest of the rules to determine it. By logic i menn grammar and in fact all the stuff the BRB give us as definitions of units.. models, how rules are written on other parts and so on(this was neighter a complete list nor is there any special order). For everyone who now jumps on the train on " You cant do that this is not raw!" Well i find it realy amazing that anyone that looks at every rule on such a tight angle is ever able to play a single game. Just because such ones must happen to miss all of the context of the rules given.
col_impact wrote:I know this stuff is mystifying to you and your argument has the bizarre conclusion that Stubborn does not actually confer - which goes directly against what the BRB is telling us - and you are heavily invested in your house rule argument.
The only thing that is mystifying to me is why you think your grammatical voodoo is acceptable when it counters everything you expect me to follow as well as ignoring the grammatical use and terms in the sentences.
You now have changed your argument without actually addressing anything directed at you, and it still fails to be supported using basic logic, diction, and grammar. Critical Thinking is required to follow your path, and it still leads me to a different place than where you intended.
col_impact wrote:Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
Correct to a point. Remember, though, that it is the special rule itself that it talks about not conferring, not the ability. The IC Special Rules section prevents the virtual copying of the Stubborn special rule from a Dark Angel Tactical Squad to an Imperial Fists Captain. The Stubborn rule then supplies its benefit to the unit when its conditions are met and they ignore any negative leadership modifiers.
col_impact wrote:I guess you have some revising of your argument to do and my RAW argument still stands.
Try again. And this time, try to remember exactly what each sentence and phrase is actually addressing.
kambien wrote:its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
Actually he isn't using most of the text of the stubborn rule, he is only using one part of it, and that part only indicates a level of possession requirement, not any actual action to be placed on anything. The only time any actionable terms are used is when they ignore any negative leadership modifiers and use Fearless instead of Stubborn. Ddischarged_impact completely ignores all of this. I did a full analysis of Stubborn in one of these threads to demonstrate this. He just ignored it and otherwise claimed I did not understand grammar.
He is partially correct. His grammar I understand about as easily as the declaration of Nicea, English translation or Latin.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
It is an extraordinary claim that you need all of the "contains" clause, when neither contains nor unit specify the IC is included. They BOTH absolutely and in ALL circumstances require you to reference the rule that the IC is a member of the unit. Meaning to claim it is NECESSARY is the extraordinary claim. And is what Col will refuse to confirm as to do so undermines their argument...
col_impact wrote:Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
Correct to a point. Remember, though, that it is the special rule itself that it talks about not conferring, not the ability. The IC Special Rules section prevents the virtual copying of the Stubborn special rule from a Dark Angel Tactical Squad to an Imperial Fists Captain. The Stubborn rule then supplies its benefit to the unit when its conditions are met and they ignore any negative leadership modifiers.
You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
It is an extraordinary claim that you need all of the "contains" clause, when neither contains nor unit specify the IC is included. They BOTH absolutely and in ALL circumstances require you to reference the rule that the IC is a member of the unit. Meaning to claim it is NECESSARY is the extraordinary claim. And is what Col will refuse to confirm as to do so undermines their argument...
I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
So as long as the rule has the wording "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule..." then the rule confers?
There is nothing magic about the wording. It just accomplishes logically what the IC Special Rules rule requires.
It's entirely feasible for a rule to use entirely different wording and logic to accomplish the same thing.
It's also entirely feasible for a rule to include that exact wording BUT additional logic that could undermine the logic of the clause already provided to the point that it logically asserts the opposite. That is just the way logic can work. So pay attention to ALL the logic specified in the rule.
So it is not a magic phrase. Just a phrase that is popularly used by the BRB, which is a hint that it is significant, but nothing more than a hint. You need to examine each case and apply the IC Special Rules rule.
col_impact wrote: You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Correct. However, you are adding to what the actual phrase means.
col_impact wrote: Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Growing up studying the American government farther than the public school system provides, I have a decent idea.
The OED actually has a lot of different definitions for it, most are not practical for the use in this case.
But to be specific, when if a rule is granted, the ability follows it. Though, in the case of Stubborn, the rule itself does not actually get granted, only the effect or ability.
col_impact wrote: Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
Oh, I am not the one mixing definitions here in a confused manner.
col_impact wrote: So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Ummm, I never said Stubborn didn't confer its ability on to the attached IC. The proper thing that we are actually addressing is the "how". In fact, I have stated numerous times at this point specifically that.
col_impact wrote: Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
Well, considering I am actually using the words presented in the way the words are presented and not looking for magical decoding materials to help me along.
You still are starting with an incorrect premise, though. The IC Special Rules section does absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit. Remember, unless a model specifically has a rule, it generally does not get to use it. The IC Special Rules section reinforces this, it does not do anything to actually separate the IC and unit in to two separate entities in regards to Special Rules OR their abilities.
col_impact wrote: I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Oh, now that is a lie or horribly mistaken. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears singing 'la la la', does not mean that no one has offered a plausible solution. I gave a full study of the entire Stubborn rule, you only focus on the first portion.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
I have. You still have not addressed it at all. You have completely ignored it and tried to reset the argument when I did. You ignore any actionable verbs in the sentence in favor of a possessive verb that does not even address the subject in question. That makes zero plausible sense.
Talk about waiting.
col_impact wrote: In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
So, I win since I fully outlined everything in the Stubborn rule and you have yet to actually addressed, much less countered, it?
Thank you for finally admitting it. This will save so much time now.
col_impact wrote: You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Correct. However, you are adding to what the actual phrase means.
col_impact wrote: Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Growing up studying the American government farther than the public school system provides, I have a decent idea.
The OED actually has a lot of different definitions for it, most are not practical for the use in this case.
But to be specific, when if a rule is granted, the ability follows it. Though, in the case of Stubborn, the rule itself does not actually get granted, only the effect or ability.
col_impact wrote: Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
Oh, I am not the one mixing definitions here in a confused manner.
col_impact wrote: So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Ummm, I never said Stubborn didn't confer its ability on to the attached IC. The proper thing that we are actually addressing is the "how". In fact, I have stated numerous times at this point specifically that.
col_impact wrote: Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
Well, considering I am actually using the words presented in the way the words are presented and not looking for magical decoding materials to help me along.
You still are starting with an incorrect premise, though. The IC Special Rules section does absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit. Remember, unless a model specifically has a rule, it generally does not get to use it. The IC Special Rules section reinforces this, it does not do anything to actually separate the IC and unit in to two separate entities in regards to Special Rules OR their abilities.
col_impact wrote: I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Oh, now that is a lie or horribly mistaken. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears singing 'la la la', does not mean that no one has offered a plausible solution. I gave a full study of the entire Stubborn rule, you only focus on the first portion.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
I have. You still have not addressed it at all. You have completely ignored it and tried to reset the argument when I did. You ignore any actionable verbs in the sentence in favor of a possessive verb that does not even address the subject in question. That makes zero plausible sense.
Talk about waiting.
col_impact wrote: In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
So, I win since I fully outlined everything in the Stubborn rule and you have yet to actually addressed, much less countered, it?
Thank you for finally admitting it. This will save so much time now.
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
"A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
Funny. i think you overlooked something. Adress tis point per point and show in specific where i am wrong. I did same with your argument.:
Spoiler:
_ghost_ wrote: "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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
col_impact why not sticking to your own words? disprove me. by doing it. not just claiming. I did some unterlining to show whitch of your words you should not forget. How comes that always someone brings a specific interpretation you over see it or just happen to ignore it at all?
col_impact wrote: You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
But I have done so here in this thread:
Charistoph wrote: Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
So, it looks like I actually DID do what I said I did. You never addressed this. You dodged it instead of addressing it (which you accused me of doing) and tried to reset the discussion. _ghost_ even provided basic synopsis, which you did not address, either, but, true to form, ignored it, skipped it, and just carried on with accusations.
col_impact wrote: So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
I am waiting on you to actually recognize the words and grammar used in the BRB.
col_impact wrote: You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
That is because the rule itself does not confer, only its benefit or ability, using the language of the rule itself.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say the referenced rule is:
Banana When a group has at least one person with a banana when the whistle blows, they may take a lunch break. If they have a banana and an apple, they use the apple rule instead.
What is being conferred here?
1) A banana
2) A blowing whistle
3) A lunch break
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC. Your inability to adhere to rules has been noted. You have a nice house rule. Talk to me when you want to talk about RAW.
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
Funny. i think you overlooked something. Adress tis point per point and show in specific where i am wrong. I did same with your argument.:
Spoiler:
_ghost_ wrote: "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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
col_impact why not sticking to your own words? disprove me. by doing it. not just claiming. I did some unterlining to show whitch of your words you should not forget. How comes that always someone brings a specific interpretation you over see it or just happen to ignore it at all?
Point to the rules that talk about "conditions" and "effects".
I just see rules which define special rules as abilities.
So a model that has the Stubborn ability has the ability to ignore negative leadership when taking morale or leadership checks. Analysis done and strictly by the rules provided.
col_impact wrote: You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
But I have done so here in this thread:
Charistoph wrote: Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?
Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.
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.
Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.
The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.
The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.
So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.
The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.
So, it looks like I actually DID do what I said I did. You never addressed this. You dodged it instead of addressing it (which you accused me of doing) and tried to reset the discussion. _ghost_ even provided basic synopsis, which you did not address, either, but, true to form, ignored it, skipped it, and just carried on with accusations.
col_impact wrote: So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
I am waiting on you to actually recognize the words and grammar used in the BRB.
col_impact wrote: You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
That is because the rule itself does not confer, only its benefit or ability, using the language of the rule itself.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say the referenced rule is:
Banana When a group has at least one person with a banana when the whistle blows, they may take a lunch break. If they have a banana and an apple, they use the apple rule instead.
What is being conferred here?
1) A banana
2) A blowing whistle
3) A lunch break
Per the BRB . . .
1) Stubborn is conferred by the Stubborn rule
2) Special rules are abiltiies per the BRB definition.
3) "Specified in the rule itself" does not require exact referencing of the IC. If it did, it would say that. All that is required is something 'specified in the rule itself' which I pointed to. You have not pointed to anything so far or presented a wording of Stubborn which would block the conferring of Stubborn per the IC Special Rules rule. Your argument isn'e even worthy of consideration. File it under house rule.
col_impact wrote: Point to the rules that talk about "conditions" and "effects".
ICs and Ongoing Effects, for one.
Read the actual rule. It only deals with what happens when an IC leaves a unit that has been affected by a harmful or benefical effect from some entitiy's special rule (such as Blind) or joins a unit that has not been affected by a harmful/beneficial effect. It simply does not apply. We are talking about abilities per the BRB. You are trying to apply the wrong rule in the wrong circumstances and ignoring the actual definition of Special Rule. Nice house rule.
Reading the rule and actually applying it when appropriate is important. Weapons have the Blind ability that causes a harmful effect. 'Ability' does not equal 'effect'. And we know how the BRB defines Special Rules.
Spoiler:
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a
beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for
example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by
the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC. Your inability to adhere to rules has been noted. You have a nice house rule. Talk to me when you want to talk about RAW.
Dodging again I see
I pointed out the specification in Stubborn, and aske dyou to explain why you magically have required the "at least one model..." addenda, despite this being no more specific than "a unit with" as far as ICs go
in return I get this dodge of a response, and you hilariously talk about others inabilityt to adhere to rules?
Just stop. You lost credibility in rules arguments about 9 threads ago.
Guys - just ignore Col. they know theyre wrong, clearly, based on how often their argument has changed. Its just an attempt to drone on long enough that others may be convinced that Cols "argument" has merit. IT doesnt
Just let it be.
The RAW is well known in this thread, and has been proven.
I just see rules which define special rules as abilities.
as you say there are no conditions SR must be unconditional. This follows by using your logic
Model and Unit are the very same instance n thing
So a model that has the
Stubborn mentions the Unit as instance that makes these tests. these tests are usually done by using the highest leadership value present in that unit.
You mix up morale- pinning- and leadership tests
to ignore negative leadership when taking morale or leadership checks
Stubborn mentions morale and pinning tests only.
Analysis done and strictly by the rules provided.
I'd say analysis done and failed in at least 3 different critical points. Thus yous analysis cannot be strictly acording to provided rules
2) Special rules are abiltiies per the BRB definition.
No, the Special Rules represent the abilities per the BRB definition. My congressmen represents me in the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean I show up and go to Washington, DC, when he does.
3) "Specified in the rule itself" does not require exact referencing of the IC. If it did, it would say that. All that is required is something 'specified in the rule itself' which I pointed to. You have not pointed to anything so far or presented a wording of Stubborn which would block the conferring of Stubborn per the IC Special Rules rule. Your argument isn'e even worthy of consideration. File it under house rule.
So you either did not really read it or just cannot refute anything specific, so you just dodge it and claim it as House Rules. Typical for your performance so far.
The only place the IC without Stubborn can be "specified" in the Stubborn special rule is the references to the unit. That is the only place. A condition of possession does not give, grant, transfer, nor confer anything.
The only thing that is given, granted, transferred, or conferred in the Stubborn special rule is the ability to ignore negative leadership modifiers, and that is only to the unit.
Therefore, all these Formation Special Rules that affect the unit, also affect the ICs which join them per the the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" rule.
col_impact wrote: Point to the rules that talk about "conditions" and "effects".
ICs and Ongoing Effects, for one.
Read the actual rule. It only deals with what happens when an IC leaves a unit that has been affected by a special rule or joins a unit that has not been affected. It simply does not apply.
Reading the rule and actually applying it when appropriate is important. Weapons have the Blind ability that causes a harmful effect. Ability does not equal affect.
I agree that reading the FULL rule and actually applying it is important. Read the very first sentence. Here, I will highlight the pertinent part in red for you:
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.
....and has been, in every single one of these threads. Their argument also changes everytime the prior argument is disproven, and then at some point it will be resurrected.
Theyre not arguing honestly. Trying to get them to admit that wont work.
Having read this thread, I have come to determine that my Wulfen won't benefit an IC joining them with a Run+Charge, coming out of a Storm Wolf.
I would like to believe that the "unit" having this rule means the IC which joined it would be now part of this unit... but if I run with the Iron Priest (for example) then that Iron Preists specific rule-set will deny the whole of the unit its Charge.
Much as reroll charge distance is denied to Cavalry if they have a bike join NOT SO if a jump pack joins, and uses the pack only during assault phase).
It would be nice, but however it's not the case.
The new formation, "Death Pack" has a similar thing (Start Collecting: Space Wolves! Starter box), in the unit having run+charge, but the Wolf Lord also has this rule so doesn't prevent the TWC from charging after a Run.
But, forming q unit comprised of Iron Priests on Wolf Mount to accompany him alone, he wouldn't convey this rule as he's prevented by the IP's.
MekLeN wrote: I would like to believe that the "unit" having this rule means the IC which joined it would be now part of this unit... but if I run with the Iron Priest (for example) then that Iron Preists specific rule-set will deny the whole of the unit its Charge.
How would the Iron Priest Run without the rest of the unit Running?
Or more to the point, how is the Iron Priest less a part of the unit for the Wulfen's rule than when the unit Runs?
MekLeN wrote: But, forming q unit comprised of Iron Priests on Wolf Mount to accompany him alone, he wouldn't convey this rule as he's prevented by the IP's.
A lot depends on how the Iron Priests join him, actually. Much of the confusion involved here is people confusing the relationship between models, units, and identifying what a special rule actually affects.
Remember, there are several levels of entities in the game. The smallest is Model. The next step up is units, which is made up of models. The next step up is detachments, which are made up of units. The last step is army which is made up of detachments and units (in the case of Unbound).
When Iron Priests join the Wolf Lord, and the Wolf Lord is operating independently, they all become Iron Priest models in the Wolf Lord unit. That unit has the capacity to Run and Charge via its Special Rule it has access to. Remember, the unit has the ability to override the restriction against Running and Charging. Also remember that the restriction against Running and Charging is made at the unit level, not the model level. The unit Runs and the models are moved. The Iron Priest model itself does not have the restriction against Running and Charging, just the Iron Priest unit, and he's not acting as an Iron Priest unit when this happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I probably missed it (especially since I've been in Nurgles embrace the last few days). If so sorry. But just to clarify:
I have a special rule that says "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...". Does it confer to an attached IC, yes or no?
I have asked him a similar question with a more specific terminology.
If an Imperial Fists Chaplain (without Counter-attack) joins a Grey Hunter Pack (with Counter-attack) and gets Charged, does the Chaplain gain +1 Attack that Phase?
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I probably missed it (especially since I've been in Nurgles embrace the last few days). If so sorry. But just to clarify:
I have a special rule that says "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...". Does it confer to an attached IC, yes or no?
I have asked him a similar question with a more specific terminology.
If an Imperial Fists Chaplain (without Counter-attack) joins a Grey Hunter Pack (with Counter-attack) and gets Charged, does the Chaplain gain +1 Attack that Phase?
Already answered. Please keep up.
There is nothing magic about the wording. It just accomplishes logically what the IC Special Rules rule requires.
It's entirely feasible for a rule to use entirely different wording and logic to accomplish the same thing.
It's also entirely feasible for a rule to include that exact wording BUT additional logic that could undermine the logic of the clause already provided to the point that it logically asserts the opposite. That is just the way logic can work. So pay attention to ALL the logic specified in the rule.
So it is not a magic phrase. Just a phrase that is popularly used by the BRB, which is a hint that it is significant, but nothing more than a hint. You need to examine each case and apply the IC Special Rules rule.
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC. Your inability to adhere to rules has been noted. You have a nice house rule. Talk to me when you want to talk about RAW.
Dodging again I see
I pointed out the specification in Stubborn, and aske dyou to explain why you magically have required the "at least one model..." addenda, despite this being no more specific than "a unit with" as far as ICs go
in return I get this dodge of a response, and you hilariously talk about others inabilityt to adhere to rules?
Just stop. You lost credibility in rules arguments about 9 threads ago.
Guys - just ignore Col. they know theyre wrong, clearly, based on how often their argument has changed. Its just an attempt to drone on long enough that others may be convinced that Cols "argument" has merit. IT doesnt
Just let it be.
The RAW is well known in this thread, and has been proven.
I keep pointing out to you the obvious. You keep just flat out ignoring the plainly stated IC Special Rules rule. You aren't really even participating in a RAW discussion
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and has provided exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" rule. So "a unit . . ." does not cut it for the IC Special Rules rule which has set 'no conferring' as default for when an IC joins a unit.
A unit "that contains at least one model with the special rule" has logic that incorporates models that have been attached to the unit. That logic allows the IC to be granted the ability.
col_impact wrote:
Read the actual rule. It only deals with what happens when an IC leaves a unit that has been affected by a special rule or joins a unit that has not been affected. It simply does not apply.
Reading the rule and actually applying it when appropriate is important. Weapons have the Blind ability that causes a harmful effect. Ability does not equal affect.
I agree that reading the FULL rule and actually applying it is important. Read the very first sentence. Here, I will highlight the pertinent part in red for you:
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.
The rulebook does not define special rule as effect. Special rules are abilities. You are getting ability confused with effect and directly contradicting how the BRB defines special rule..
Blind is the ability of a weapon granted by a special rule to cast a harmful effect on a unit. That effect is simply "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn" and is not the Blind ability itself.
In fact, all lines of reasoning seeking to treat special rules as 'effects' can be filed away as house rules. The BRB defines special rules for us and they are abilities.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of
causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a
special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the
ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of
their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of
the skies.
So present a line of reasoning that treats special rules as abilities or mark your argument a house rule.
3) "Specified in the rule itself" does not require exact referencing of the IC. If it did, it would say that. All that is required is something 'specified in the rule itself' which I pointed to. You have not pointed to anything so far or presented a wording of Stubborn which would block the conferring of Stubborn per the IC Special Rules rule. Your argument isn'e even worthy of consideration. File it under house rule.
So you either did not really read it or just cannot refute anything specific, so you just dodge it and claim it as House Rules. Typical for your performance so far.
The only place the IC without Stubborn can be "specified" in the Stubborn special rule is the references to the unit. That is the only place. A condition of possession does not give, grant, transfer, nor confer anything.
The only thing that is given, granted, transferred, or conferred in the Stubborn special rule is the ability to ignore negative leadership modifiers, and that is only to the unit.
Therefore, all these Formation Special Rules that affect the unit, also affect the ICs which join them per the the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" rule.
Incorrect.
First, the IC Special Rules rule has provided exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' in the case of special rules.
Moreover, on top of being overwritten by the IC Special Rules rules, 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' isn't specified in the rule itself.
You keep ignoring what the rule asks you to do. Find the part of the Stubborn special rule that would logically re-incorporate the IC that has been detached from the unit for the purposes of determining if a special rule confers. You keep holding up your hands and pretending to fail to find it, but the BRB has instructed you to find it and you cannot ignore the BRB.
The clause, "that contains at least one model with the special rule", logically incorporates models that are attached to the collective entity described (in this case the collective entity is a unit). The scope of the rule has been 'specified in the rule itself' by that clause.
But I should remind you that there is nothing magic about that phrase - it just satisfies the IC Special rule and wound up being a very popular way for the BRB to do it. The magic is not the clause per se but that there is specific logic included in the special rules themselves which establish specifically how ICs joined to units are conferring their special rules to one another.
I have kept up. You did not answer the question then, you do not answer it now. Instead, you just dodge it by ignoring it.
Answer directly, if an Imperial Fists Chaplain (without Counter-attack) joins a Grey Hunter Pack (with Counter-attack) and gets Charged, does the Chaplain gain +1 Attack that Phase? Please explain your answer.
col_impact wrote: There is nothing magic about the wording. It just accomplishes logically what the IC Special Rules rule requires.
Your interpretation of it is magical, since it does not do what you say it does.
col_impact wrote: It's also entirely feasible for a rule to include that exact wording BUT additional logic that could undermine the logic of the clause already provided to the point that it logically asserts the opposite. That is just the way logic can work. So pay attention to ALL the logic specified in the rule.
Yes, please pay attention to ALL the logic specified in Stubborn AND the Independent Character rule. A notice of possession is NOT a method of transference. This phrase you love is useful in identifying the scope of the target of transference, but it does not transfer anything on its own.
That is why it doesn't work for Counter-attack. The actual target is not "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule", but only "models with this special rule", while Stubborn it is simply the "they" who are "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule", and more specifically just "a unit" since an IC without this special rule is not represented with "which contains at least one model with this special rule".
col_impact wrote: I keep pointing out to you the obvious. You keep just flat out ignoring the plainly stated IC Special Rules rule. You aren't really even participating in a RAW discussion
Yeah, we really aren't since you aren't actually using the literal written words, just your voodoo grammar version of them.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and has provided exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" rule. So "a unit . . ." does not cut it for the IC Special Rules rule which has set 'no conferring' as default for when an IC joins a unit.
Incorrect. That is only your interpretation based on your own desire to limit the situation. There is no separation between unit and IC noted in the IC Special Rules section, only a prevention of mixing special rules between them.
col_impact wrote: A unit "that contains at least one model with the special rule" has logic that incorporates models that have been attached to the unit. That logic allows the IC to be granted the ability.
Only by using the "counts as a part of the unit for all rules purposes". The IC is never mentioned in that phrase except if we have already established this connection that addressing a unit with a rule also addresses the IC as a model in the unit. And even then, this only establishes a target parameter. Nothing in this phrase actually performs anything on the target.
And he is right. You are in your own lala land that reinterprets words and grammar to suit your objectives in your head, and it is very hard to get people to leave their lala lands even when proven that is all that it is.
col_impact wrote: Read the actual rule. It only deals with what happens when an IC leaves a unit that has been affected by a special rule or joins a unit that has not been affected. It simply does not apply.
Reading the rule and actually applying it when appropriate is important. Weapons have the Blind ability that causes a harmful effect. Ability does not equal affect.
I agree that reading the FULL rule and actually applying it is important. Read the very first sentence. Here, I will highlight the pertinent part in red for you:
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.
The rulebook does not define special rule as effect. Special rules are abilities. You are getting ability confused with effect and directly contradicting how the BRB defines special rule..
You really are going to be dense about this, aren't you?
An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.
A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.
Do not be too rigid in your definitions, you are often losing the forest for the poplars.
col_impact wrote: Blind is the ability of a weapon granted by a special rule to cast a harmful effect on a unit. That effect is simply "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn" and is not the Blind ability itself.
That is the effect of the Blind ability, correct.
col_impact wrote: In fact, all lines of reasoning seeking to treat special rules as 'effects' can be filed away as house rules. The BRB defines special rules for us and they are abilities.
Correct, to a point. Especially when we have never stated nor approached that concept as a case. That does not mean that special rules do not carry effects within them. That would be like saying a unit does not have models.
col_impact wrote: First, the IC Special Rules rule has provided exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' in the case of special rules.
No, it hasn't. That is only your interpretation which has no connection to the language in that section. No actual separation between IC and unit is stated to occur. No exception is stated to occur. All that is stated is the transference of the rules themselves is prohibited. What they represent nor the effects of those abilities is ever reference or actually suggested.
And you are still dodging the review of Stubborn itself.
col_impact wrote: Moreover, on top of being overwritten by the IC Special Rules rules, 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' isn't specified in the rule itself.
Which rule? The Joining and Leaving a unit section or IC Special Rules?
The last paragraph is:
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.
Well THIS section definitely specifies it. This then establishes the standard by which we operate when the previous conditions of the section have been met. They stand unless specifically noted otherwise.
All the IC Special Rules section states the special rules are not given to each other. This is not in a vacuum, so the standards of the previous sections apply. Just as they apply when operating with Stubborn or Fleet.
col_impact wrote: You keep ignoring what the rule asks you to do. Find the part of the Stubborn special rule that would logically re-incorporate the IC that has been detached from the unit for the purposes of determining if a special rule confers. You keep holding up your hands and pretending to fail to find it, but the BRB has instructed you to find it and you cannot ignore the BRB.
I don't have to because they have not been detached. How can I prove a negative?
Please highlight in the following where it specifically states, "the IC does not count as part of the unit in regards to Special Rules", I would even accept "separate":
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.
Do note, "not conferring" does not mean they are separated. Conferring does not mean "join" in any use of a dictionary or the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: The clause, "that contains at least one model with the special rule", logically incorporates models that are attached to the collective entity described (in this case the collective entity is a unit). The scope of the rule has been 'specified in the rule itself' by that clause.
Incorrect. Nothing about incorporating is involved. The incorporation has to occur BEFORE this phrase is even attempted in order for it to work. This whole phrase is just a method of identification. Its language simply does not support anything else. The verb contain in this use means "Have or hold (someone or something) within" or "Be made up of (a number of things); consist of". How the heck is that an inclusionary verb? It is reliant on the inclusion having already been established.
col_impact wrote: But I should remind you that there is nothing magic about that phrase - it just satisfies the IC Special rule and wound up being a very popular way for the BRB to do it. The magic is not the clause per se but that there is specific logic included in the special rules themselves which establish specifically how ICs joined to units are conferring their special rules to one another.
I know it is not magic, I told you that several times already. Your interpretation definitely is from a Fantasyland, though.
If this phrase is specifically how they are joined together, then why that same phrase not used in the IC's Joining and Leaving a Unit section, or the IC Special Rules section?
"A unit that contains at least one model" is NO MORE specific with ATTACHED models than "a unit". That is proven
No matter what you say, you cannot counter the rules argument presented. Your literally made up rules cannot counter the argument, and your change of tack every single time you are proven wrong doesnt counter the argument either.
Guys - just give up responding to Col. Its a waste of time.
I am not sure what the debate even is here, to be honest I have seen a lot of picking at the IC's special rules like they do not allow this in some way. Im not going to quote them here cus they have been quoted like a million times here over andover. but here is the simple answer to this.:
- it very clearly says that when an IC joins a unit they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. This is backed up by how leadership works, allowing the unit to use the highest leadership for the unit. That is almost always the IC.
- they also move as models of their type. Which is the same type as the wolfen themselves. Meaning they can choose to make move, run, and charge moves following the normal rules.
-the difference between this rule and other special rules is that it doesn't have to confer anything to IC. the RAW SPECIFICALLY says it covers the UNIT, as that would include IC's in that unit! Because the IC is part of the unit as defined by the IC rules that character can run and charge with the wolfen. Because the rule blankets the entire unit it applies to any character that becomes part of the unit as well. This is not the same as most other special rules as it specifically points out the UNIT and not a MODEL. RAW that is very cut and dry.
-no where under the IC does it specifically say that they can not do this, the follow normal movement, and this special rule that applies tot he whole unit supercedes normal movement for the unit, assuming they all move the same. I.E. not on a bike or are cavalry etc. . PERIOD. If you argue that it does not supersede normal movement then the entire unit of wolfen can not run and charge, even if they didn't have a IC with them. and that is CLEARLY not the case.
"A unit that contains at least one model" is NO MORE specific with ATTACHED models than "a unit". That is proven
No matter what you say, you cannot counter the rules argument presented. Your literally made up rules cannot counter the argument, and your change of tack every single time you are proven wrong doesnt counter the argument either.
Guys - just give up responding to Col. Its a waste of time.
I will not continue the dialogue of the death.
I don't know why you guys keep replying to him. I put Colon-Impact on "ignore" a long time ago and Dakka has been immensely more pleasant ever since.
MekLeN wrote: I would like to believe that the "unit" having this rule means the IC which joined it would be now part of this unit... but if I run with the Iron Priest (for example) then that Iron Preists specific rule-set will deny the whole of the unit its Charge.
How would the Iron Priest Run without the rest of the unit Running?
Or more to the point, how is the Iron Priest less a part of the unit for the Wulfen's rule than when the unit Runs?
MekLeN wrote: But, forming q unit comprised of Iron Priests on Wolf Mount to accompany him alone, he wouldn't convey this rule as he's prevented by the IP's.
A lot depends on how the Iron Priests join him, actually. Much of the confusion involved here is people confusing the relationship between models, units, and identifying what a special rule actually affects.
Remember, there are several levels of entities in the game. The smallest is Model. The next step up is units, which is made up of models. The next step up is detachments, which are made up of units. The last step is army which is made up of detachments and units (in the case of Unbound).
When Iron Priests join the Wolf Lord, and the Wolf Lord is operating independently, they all become Iron Priest models in the Wolf Lord unit. That unit has the capacity to Run and Charge via its Special Rule it has access to. Remember, the unit has the ability to override the restriction against Running and Charging. Also remember that the restriction against Running and Charging is made at the unit level, not the model level. The unit Runs and the models are moved. The Iron Priest model itself does not have the restriction against Running and Charging, just the Iron Priest unit, and he's not acting as an Iron Priest unit when this happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Col_impact, I probably missed it (especially since I've been in Nurgles embrace the last few days). If so sorry. But just to clarify:
I have a special rule that says "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...". Does it confer to an attached IC, yes or no?
I have asked him a similar question with a more specific terminology.
If an Imperial Fists Chaplain (without Counter-attack) joins a Grey Hunter Pack (with Counter-attack) and gets Charged, does the Chaplain gain +1 Attack that Phase?
It seems simple enough, and if you can't state it simple - then you don't know it well enough:
The UNIT has the rule.
The IC doesn't have the rule.
The IC joins the Unit, yes, but when it comes time to check conditions after the run is performed, when determining if can charge, the IC isn't able to Charge cuz it performed a Run move (without the rule, itself). Some things like "Scout" -Do- confer, meaning I can join the Iron Priests into a Scout squad and do a 12" scout move (keeping coherency) then move out of the Scout squad during the move phase for an additional 12", then do yet another d6" which is NICE.
BUT
unless this rule states that it confers, It Does Not.
I would be a sneak to try pulling off this argument in any other way against my opponents, taking advantage of them and ruining the satisfaction of a hard-earned victory.
It seems simple enough, and if you can't state it simple - then you don't know it well enough:
The UNIT has the rule.
The IC doesn't have the rule.
The IC joins the Unit, yes, but when it comes time to check conditions after the run is performed, when determining if can charge, the IC isn't able to Charge cuz it performed a Run move (without the rule, itself). Some things like "Scout" -Do- confer, meaning I can join the Iron Priests into a Scout squad and do a 12" scout move (keeping coherency) then move out of the Scout squad during the move phase for an additional 12", then do yet another d6" which is NICE.
BUT
unless this rule states that it confers, It Does Not.
I would be a sneak to try pulling off this argument in any other way against my opponents, taking advantage of them and ruining the satisfaction of a hard-earned victory.
The IC joins the Unit, yes, but when it comes time to check conditions after the run is performed, when determining if can charge, the IC isn't able to Charge cuz it performed a Run move (without the rule, itself).
This part is crap because:
When Iron Priests join the Wolf Lord, and the Wolf Lord is operating independently, they all become Iron Priest models in the Wolf Lord unit. That unit has the capacity to Run and Charge via its Special Rule it has access to. Remember, the unit has the ability to override the restriction against Running and Charging. Also remember that the restriction against Running and Charging is made at the unit level, not the model level. The unit Runs and the models are moved. The Iron Priest model itself does not have the restriction against Running and Charging, just the Iron Priest unit, and he's not acting as an Iron Priest unit when this happens
Whether or not a model moves can change how effective it will be in the Psychic or Shooting phases.
"Different Movement Distances Within a Unit"
Spoiler:
Sometimes, a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
There has already been a determination that one who uses a unit that contains both Bikes and Jump Packs are not able to reroll charge distance, no? Nor can the Turbo-Boost rule confer to the Jump Packs, instead the Jump Packs will run d6" and the Bikes will Turbo-Boost, but must remain in Coherency.
Yes, the unit has this awesome Run+Charge rule, but when we check whether or not the Iron Priest MODEL can charge, it cannot because looking back at the Shooting phase we see he used his Run, and the rules state a model counts as having Run.
"Run"
Spoiler:
Models in the unit may then immediately move up to that distance in inches. They (the models) may choose not to move after the roll is made, but still count as having Run.
I would like to state, however, for everyone here:
Spoiler:
Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase.
This does apply to the UNIT, right? And the rules state:
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
likewise the Deathpack formation for in the "Start Collecting!: Space Wolves" Starter box just released says:
Spoiler:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your Shooting phase, can ... Run and still be able to charge in the same turn.
SO - the ONE RULE that states "Run units cannot charge in the following Assault phase" is not applied to the Unit that has this special rule, as though it didn't exist/apply to them.
Any thoughts, anyone?
a rule doesn't exist unless it's written, and the one instance denying Run + Charge is nullified in this case...
I'm not interested AT ALL (!) in yammering on about rules discrepancies - however believe I may have something worth a touch of discussion. Please?
It seems simple enough, and if you can't state it simple - then you don't know it well enough:
The UNIT has the rule.
The IC doesn't have the rule.
The IC joins the Unit, yes, but when it comes time to check conditions after the run is performed, when determining if can charge, the IC isn't able to Charge cuz it performed a Run move (without the rule, itself). Some things like "Scout" -Do- confer, meaning I can join the Iron Priests into a Scout squad and do a 12" scout move (keeping coherency) then move out of the Scout squad during the move phase for an additional 12", then do yet another d6" which is NICE.
BUT
unless this rule states that it confers, It Does Not.
I would be a sneak to try pulling off this argument in any other way against my opponents, taking advantage of them and ruining the satisfaction of a hard-earned victory.
It literally is that simple. The special rule overrides the standard movement that says models can not run and charge. it does this at the unit level which the IC is part of. You can say no its not as much as you want but the wording is very clear. It covers the entire unit because it never specifically says it does not. ( i would link the wording of the rule but I don't believe i am allowed) But it says that Special rules that are applied to the unit cover the IC so long as they are part of the unit. VERY clearly.
- it very clearly says that when an IC joins a unit they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. This is backed up by how leadership works, allowing the unit to use the highest leadership for the unit. That is almost always the IC.
Using this rule to support your argument is kind of like reading in the BRB that a walker is a vehicle, and reading no further. Since you don't read and consider the entirety of rules regarding walkers, you would claim that since it is a vehicle, it is always hit on its rear armor in melee, has a WS of 1, cannot be locked in combat, etc, which is blatantly incorrect.
If you continue to read the independent character rules, it goes on to specify the relationship between ICs, their unit, and special rules. Quote: "When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."
So, the default question to the answer "does an IC get the special rule of the unit it is joined to" is NO - unless the rule allows it. And that is the eternal debate, same as the skyhammer. Is the rule worded in such a way to apply to the IC?
My personal opinion is that unless there is a clause that specifically allows sharing, or is worded like 'if one model has the rule, the entire unit benefits", than it's a no-go. And that interpretation is backed up from the direct rules quote above regarding the effect of special rules and ICs in units.
Whether or not a model moves can change how effective it will be in the Psychic or Shooting phases.
"Different Movement Distances Within a Unit"
Spoiler:
Sometimes, a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
There has already been a determination that one who uses a unit that contains both Bikes and Jump Packs are not able to reroll charge distance, no? Nor can the Turbo-Boost rule confer to the Jump Packs, instead the Jump Packs will run d6" and the Bikes will Turbo-Boost, but must remain in Coherency.
Yes, the unit has this awesome Run+Charge rule, but when we check whether or not the Iron Priest MODEL can charge, it cannot because looking back at the Shooting phase we see he used his Run, and the rules state a model counts as having Run.
"Run"
Spoiler:
Models in the unit may then immediately move up to that distance in inches. They (the models) may choose not to move after the roll is made, but still count as having Run.
I would like to state, however, for everyone here:
Spoiler:
Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase.
This does apply to the UNIT, right? And the rules state:
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
likewise the Deathpack formation for in the "Start Collecting!: Space Wolves" Starter box just released says:
Spoiler:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your Shooting phase, can ... Run and still be able to charge in the same turn.
SO - the ONE RULE that states "Run units cannot charge in the following Assault phase" is not applied to the Unit that has this special rule, as though it didn't exist/apply to them.
Any thoughts, anyone?
a rule doesn't exist unless it's written, and the one instance denying Run + Charge is nullified in this case...
I'm not interested AT ALL (!) in yammering on about rules discrepancies - however believe I may have something worth a touch of discussion. Please?
You have quoted several rules here that are superseded by the way that special rules work in general. The one about different unit types doesn't even make sense to include in this conversation. i don't understand why you are. I don't belive that anyone is going to claim a unit on a bike, can run and charge in the same turn because bikes cant run. You are intentionally muddying the argument.
Actually, special rules are NOT conferred from unit to IC. Is the Wulfen unit rule a special rule?
Is the Deathpack formation rule a special rule?
Yes - a rule isn't existing unless it is stated so. And rules that are made exceptioned no longer have effect; unit applied rules will be negated by unit applied counter-rulings.
MekLeN wrote: Actually, special rules are NOT conferred from unit to IC. Is the Wulfen unit rule a special rule?
Is the Deathpack formation rule a special rule?
Yes - a rule isn't existing unless it is stated so. And rules that are made exceptioned no longer have effect; unit applied rules will be negated by unit applied counter-rulings.
Meklan, does Stubborn confer? How do we know? If it does confer, where in the rules for Stubborn does it say it confers?
I'm providing information. As you read further on in my post, the rule question (not statement) is whether the Unit-applied rule preventing charges affects simply unit-level or affects individual models, too.
As we can see from what I also mentioned the movement speed is not in question, rather the ability to ignore the SINGLE instance stating units cannot charge that've Run.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It says so clearly, a unit that contains at least one model gains benefit. Just like scout, and many others
Automatically Appended Next Post: In terms of stubborn
Automatically Appended Next Post: But -if the stubborn model no longer lives/joins the unit, then the "check" doesn't trigger Stubborn. This happens each time it's required to check, throughout the phase as many times as it happens
Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Is the part of this that very simply makes it work. that one sentence CLEARLY states that if it covers the unit.
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."
MekLeN wrote: Actually, special rules are NOT conferred from unit to IC. Is the Wulfen unit rule a special rule?
Is the Deathpack formation rule a special rule?
Yes - a rule isn't existing unless it is stated so. And rules that are made exceptioned no longer have effect; unit applied rules will be negated by unit applied counter-rulings.
Meklan, does Stubborn confer? How do we know? If it does confer, where in the rules for Stubborn does it say it confers?
Stubborn rule, quote, BRB:
"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 is specifically worded to allow sharing the rule as long at the unit contains one model. That is why an IC with stubborn gets to share it. So, with commissar in a guardsmen squad, only one model in that entire squad has stubborn. But the stubborn rule allows the entire unit to benefit from that one model's special rule. This is the exception, not the rule.
Thus,in context: if the Wolf Lord dies the TWC no longer can Charge after Run,and if the Wulfen all die and the IC forms his own unit again at beginning of next phase, the rule no longer apllies
Automatically Appended Next Post: The unit has benefit, but doesn't gain the rule accross each model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's specifically the wording that says "Unit" in the sentence of Run preventing a charge that has my curiosity ... it says nothing of models.
It says nothing of what the IC entry does, in terms of not gaining the special rules of the unit, instead it checks the unit special rules.
MekLeN wrote: Thus,in context: if the Wolf Lord dies the TWC no longer can Charge after Run,and if the Wulfen all die and the IC forms his own unit again at beginning of next phase, the rule no longer apllies
Automatically Appended Next Post: The unit has benefit, but doesn't gain the rule accross each model.
Yes, once the part of the unit applying the rule dies it drops. That is all very clear to everyone. That is specifically addressed. "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and
all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start
of the following phase."
but not until the beginning of the of the following phase.
Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Is the part of this that very simply makes it work. that one sentence CLEARLY states that if it covers the unit.
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."
Again. You cannot read one out-of-context line from the rule and apply in in all situations. Or, rather, you could, except for the fact that there is a simple, specific, and direct rule regarding the effect of special rules on and by ICs and their unit. This is after the rule you quote, and is in the paragraph entitled 'special rules'.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
This is non-negotiable. Whether or not the rule is written loosely enough to apply to all models in a combined unit, is.
Skyhammer prevents IC's from gaining awesomeness, right?
Who's ruling is this? GW? No... it's of the tournaments themselves - acts of balance determined by groups of players.I concede, that playing with opponents in determining these rulings, we should find whether they follow a tournaments rulings (in entirety) or not. If not,then I'm thinking the BRB states that the unit is the check, not the model.
MekLeN wrote: Actually, special rules are NOT conferred from unit to IC. Is the Wulfen unit rule a special rule?
Is the Deathpack formation rule a special rule?
Yes - a rule isn't existing unless it is stated so. And rules that are made exceptioned no longer have effect; unit applied rules will be negated by unit applied counter-rulings.
Meklan, does Stubborn confer? How do we know? If it does confer, where in the rules for Stubborn does it say it confers?
Stubborn rule, quote, BRB:
"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 is specifically worded to allow sharing the rule as long at the unit contains one model. That is why an IC with stubborn gets to share it. So, with commissar in a guardsmen squad, only one model in that entire squad has stubborn. But the stubborn rule allows the entire unit to benefit from that one model's special rule. This is the exception, not the rule.
Kap'n Krump wrote: If you continue to read the independent character rules, it goes on to specify the relationship between ICs, their unit, and special rules. Quote: "When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."
So, the default question to the answer "does an IC get the special rule of the unit it is joined to" is NO - unless the rule allows it. And that is the eternal debate, same as the skyhammer. Is the rule worded in such a way to apply to the IC?
My personal opinion is that unless there is a clause that specifically allows sharing, or is worded like 'if one model has the rule, the entire unit benefits", than it's a no-go. And that interpretation is backed up from the direct rules quote above regarding the effect of special rules and ICs in units.
Thank you, Kap'n. That answers my question succinctly.
1. does a IC become a part of the unit when it joins?
--yes
2. Does the unit still be the same unit even with a joined IC?
--yes
3. Is the Wulfen Special rule a rule that the Unit has?
--yes
4. do we check on Unit or Model level when it comes to runing and/or charging?
--Unit level
so its absolutely clear that this works. the IC has no need to posses , or getting confered any Rule that affects just the unit it joins. because the moment the Ic joins the unit it counts as a full member of the unit.
However, as I intend to have people to game with, I will defer to the tournament FAQ's they choose to follow, as this is the balancing act that GW doesn't provide with regularly errata'ing their rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, a the rule says perform a check upon being charged. If unit level is already engaged, the model doesn't provide the benefit of. Idk if this should be taken BRB-wide or simply within this Special Rule
using the logic that no special rules confer to special character sunder any circumstances unless the rule SPECIFICALLY says they do(which is not how the rule is even written by the way) mean that buffs that effect units in range of other units also do not effect special characters. And we all know that is not the case. Including the "cures of the wolfen" rule. So none of your IC's get that as well? How many other armies have rules JUST like that? so you are saying that NONE of those rules effect IC's? Because they are literally the same thing.
Dyslexican32 wrote: using the logic that no special rules confer to special character sunder any circumstances unless the rule SPECIFICALLY says they do(which is not how the rule is even written by the way) mean that buffs that effect units in range of other units also do not effect special characters. And we all know that is not the case. Including the "cures of the wolfen" rule. So none of your IC's get that as well? How many other armies have rules JUST like that? so you are saying that NONE of those rules effect IC's? Because they are literally the same thing.
Exactly! A ton of Special Rules do not work as they're clearly supposed to if you apply that logic, not just auras. The effect of Blind targets just "a unit", so ICs wouldn't be blinded even though the BRB clearly says they are - which can only be true if rules affecting units automatically include ICs.
Follow the house rulings // FAQ's if they're preferred. Be a good player, and a reasonable opponent.
However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.
MekLeN wrote: However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.
This is pretty much what we have been saying.
Stubborn affects the unit. Counter-attack affects the model. Fleet affects the unit, but still requires all models to have it. Part of Move Through Cover affects the unit, while the other half affects the model.
The Wulfen special rule of the OP (and most of the Formation Special Rules like this) affects the unit.
MekLeN wrote: However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.
This is pretty much what we have been saying.
Stubborn affects the unit. Counter-attack affects the model. Fleet affects the unit, but still requires all models to have it. Part of Move Through Cover affects the unit, while the other half affects the model.
The Wulfen special rule of the OP (and most of the Formation Special Rules like this) affects the unit.
Note a trend?
You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.
Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).
Special rules are abilities represented by the special rules themselves. We know this because the BRB defines them explicitly as such.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
Stubborn is an ability. Counter-attack is an ability. Fleet is an ability. Move through cover is an ability.
Stubborn is an ability because the rules tell us that it is an ability.
Stubborn is conferred to the IC that joins a unit with the Stubborn ability because the rules tells us explicitly that this is the case.
Since special rules stand for the abilities themselves, the actual Stubborn ability is granted on the IC through the presence of "something specified in the rule itself" that specifically confers the special rule to the IC.
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the ability of the special rule is not conferred from the unit with the special rule to the IC unless the special rule includes something "specified in the rule itself" that specifically allows it.
The IC Special Rules rule sets the default for special rules of the unit to NOT confer to the attached ICs.
Therefore the IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". ICs are not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. In that circumstance, the IC Special Rules rule takes precedence and must be satisfied.
In order for the IC to get the ability of the special rule, the special rule must have something "specified in the rule itself" such as a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". The presence of an explicit clause like that one in the rule itself allows the special rule to be scoped to attached models which would logically include ICs.
So in short, in order for special rules to confer from the unit to the IC you must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule and point to something "specified in the rule itself" that logically gets past the default state of no conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC. You keep pointing to the ICs "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause but that has been overridden by the IC Special Rules rule in the case of the conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC (and vice versa). Your stubborn refusal of this plain rules fact is nothing more than sheer stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge plainly written rules.
You and several others in this thread are confusing ability with effect. The rules don't allow you to confuse them. The rules are explicit about what special rules are so listen to the BRB and follow its definitions.
All special rules are abilities. Some special rules have as their ability the means to cause a harmful or beneficial effect (such as Blind) but special rules are always abilities and only a few of those abilities cause effects (and those effects are just effects and not the special rules themselves). The Blind special rule is an ability of a weapon or model to cause a harmful effect on a unit. The unit that is the target of the harmful effect does not have the Blind special rule in any shape or form, only the ongoing harmful effect.
If you do not adhere to the definitions that the rules provide then you are not RAW. Nice house rule you have there. So sure if you break away from the BRB definitions then you can pretty much house rule whatever you want.
But I will stick with the Rules as Written. Let me know when you want to discuss RAW.
col_impact wrote: You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.
You dodge the direct response to this by responding to the short form?
col_impact wrote: Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).
And again, like countless times we have stated, you are misrepresenting what we are saying. Part of your voodoo grammar, perhaps?
Did I say Special Rules are effects? No. I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.
Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.
Stubborn's ability is to allow the unit ignore negative Leadership Modifiers. The effect of Stubborn is "ignore negative Leadership Modifiers."
This has already been defined in my last direct response to you. Go back and address that if you choose to actually discuss it.
Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.
Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.
Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.
No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.
I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.
Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.
Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).
This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.
You have absolutely nothing more than a House Rule and a weird House Rule at that - one that tries to force the rules of Ongoing Effects onto Special Rules.
Let me know when you want to discuss RAW. That means we stick with discussing what's in the BRB.
I simply point to where special rules are defined by the BRB to assert my claim that special rules are abilities represented by special rules.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of
causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a
special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the
ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of
their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of
the skies.
That's the beauty of my argument. It is actually supported by the rules, and not some made-up hogwash.
The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.
While I agree with your first statement your second is plainly untrue. No one has demonstrated permission for a rule to confer to all models in an unit by default without said rule stating it does , including an attached IC, in the context of the actual rules as written for ICe joining an unit with different special rules as laid out in the actual rulebook.
The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.
While I agree with your first statement your second is plainly untrue. No one has demonstrated permission for a rule to confer to all models in an unit , including an attached IC, in the context of the actual rules as written for ICe joining an unit with different special rules as laid out in the actual rulebook.
...because no one has tried to. Only in your bizarre version of the thread. You're literally arguing something no one cares about.
A unit gains rules, as noted on the data sheet ref 10 is the unit. The IC joining does not alter the units name, identity etc. If the unit is affected, BY DEFINITION this doesn't alter if an IC joins. So the unit remains affected. In this case it means the unit may charge
So either argue the actual argument (for once) or, please, let it die.
The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.
You don't know what RAW means then.
Your side has time and time again only presented a house rule and a very disingenuous one at that.
RAW means following the rules as written.
It means you don't apply the rules for Ongoing Effects to the rules for special rules. That obviously goes against the rules as they are written.
So far only myself and a few others have actually adhered to the rules as written.
Your side ignores plainly stated rules.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The reason this doesn't die is because your side is flat-out ignoring rules to try to gain an advantage (for the Imperium). While your views may be popular, they are against the rules, plain and simple.
I oppose those kind of shenanigans. Rules are rules and need to be adhered to.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You've dodged every direct question , so don't try to claim any high ground.
so a special rule csnnot grant an ongoing effect? Interesting if wrong position.
Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.
You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.
The BRB includes rules for Special Rules and ICs which governs whether the ability of the special rules of the unit are granted to the attached IC.
You must follow that rule.
Spoiler:
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.
I have dodged no questions. You have merely stated I have dodged questions (as a disruptive tactic) when I show you the rules that you cannot ignore.
You are in fact the one who keeps dodging rules plainly stated.
And I will claim the high ground since I am in fact one of the few who is indeed adhering to the rules.
blaktoof wrote:Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.
Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.
Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.
No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.
col_impact wrote:Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.
You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.
We are not confusing anything, and you all are not even understanding what is being stated as you keep taking it off on to an unstated tangent. So who is really confused here?
An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.
A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.
Do not be too rigid in your definitions, you are often losing the forest for the poplars.
I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.
Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.
Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).
It is a simple fact by simple review of the special rules. Not everything needs to be printed jot and tittle, and can be surmised by a logical review.
Stubborn has a target, "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test" as designated by the later "they" which precedes the effect. It has a trigger, "takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test". It has an effect, "ignore negative Leadership modifiers".
If you do not think this applies, address it properly. Do not ignore it, do not dodge it, face it head on.
col_impact wrote:This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.
I have no cronies. I do not pay anyone to respond, nor have any of them offered themselves in servitude to me.
Considering you have not used any argument, much less proper logic and grammar, to counter any of my analysis's of the Stubborn rule, and you insist on using verbs whose meaning does not apply for your analysis, I can easily say that you are the one prepared to cleanse porcine.
blaktoof wrote:Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.
Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.
Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.
No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.
col_impact wrote:Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.
You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.
We are not confusing anything, and you all are not even understanding what is being stated as you keep taking it off on to an unstated tangent. So who is really confused here?
An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.
A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.
Do not be too rigid in your definitions, you are often losing the forest for the poplars.
I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.
Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.
Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).
It is a simple fact by simple review of the special rules. Not everything needs to be printed jot and tittle, and can be surmised by a logical review.
Stubborn has a target, "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test" as designated by the later "they" which precedes the effect. It has a trigger, "takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test". It has an effect, "ignore negative Leadership modifiers".
If you do not think this applies, address it properly. Do not ignore it, do not dodge it, face it head on.
col_impact wrote:This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.
I have no cronies. I do not pay anyone to respond, nor have any of them offered themselves in servitude to me.
Considering you have not used any argument, much less proper logic and grammar, to counter any of my analysis's of the Stubborn rule, and you insist on using verbs whose meaning does not apply for your analysis, I can easily say that you are the one prepared to cleanse porcine.
So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.
Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.
How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in the BRB?
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of
causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a
special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the
ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of
their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of
the skies.
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.
I will stick to the rules as written. Let me know when you have something to contribute along those lines. So far you have shown me nothing.
If you want me to address your particular house rule go ahead and post it in the proposed rules section and I will happily address it there. Who knows, maybe you have some good ideas for some proposed rules.
col_impact wrote: So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.
Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.
This from one who thinks that "contains a model with this special rule" means "include the Independent Character with this special rule"
And watch, how he ignores what has been said and goes off on his tangent with no relation in regards to what has been stated as if it was important.
col_impact wrote: How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in the BRB?
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.
I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.
As before. Let this die. Col and Blaktoof cannot possibly persuade, as they refuse to use the printed rules, and instead their own logic grammar and even changing the words used to suit. It's a pointless argument.
col_impact wrote: So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.
Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.
This from one who thinks that "contains a model with this special rule" means "include the Independent Character with this special rule"
And watch, how he ignores what has been said and goes off on his tangent with no relation in regards to what has been stated as if it was important.
col_impact wrote: How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in the BRB?
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.
I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.
Stubborn affects the unit. Yes, or no?
Doe Blind affect a unit. Yes, or no?
Is Blind a Special Rule? Yes, or no?
Yup you are confusing ability with affect.
Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.
Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: As before. Let this die. Col and Blaktoof cannot possibly persuade, as they refuse to use the printed rules, and instead their own logic grammar and even changing the words used to suit. It's a pointless argument.
I use nothing but the printed rules.
In fact, your side has been ignoring rules and inserting inappropriate definitions and when confronted by rules that you cannot ignore seek to shut down the discussion.
Unless you have something constructive to add to the thread, keep your comments to yourself.
Yes, and raw is that the special rule affecting the unit cares not if an IC joins the unit. As the unit never changes
As for using printed rules, Is that the same as when you decided confer didn't mean confer, but something else? And then changed your mind when that still didn't help your argument. Or how about when you decide - using no printed rule, just your own ideas- that "contains" is required, when it is no more specific than "unit with" is.
But hey. Pretend your argument has any basis in reality and logic. That's your prerogative. Just it isn't raw. It never will be raw (as currently written) and frankly is a waste of time posting about it. You have zero credibility.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, and raw is that the special rule affecting the unit cares not if an IC joins the unit. As the unit never changes
As for using printed rules, Is that the same as when you decided confer didn't mean confer, but something else? And then changed your mind when that still didn't help your argument. Or how about when you decide - using no printed rule, just your own ideas- that "contains" is required, when it is no more specific than "unit with" is.
But hey. Pretend your argument has any basis in reality and logic. That's your prerogative. Just it isn't raw. It never will be raw (as currently written) and frankly is a waste of time posting about it. You have zero credibility.
Special rules are abilities per the rules. Special rules do not affect the unit. Special rules are abilities that the unit has. A few special rules (like Blind) have abilities that can negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.
An IC that joins the unit only gets the ability of the unit if it satisfies 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.
This is the rule that you choose to flat out ignore. Therefore your argument is entirely against the rules.
The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that by default the IC does not get the special rules of the unit.
This means that the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of determining if the special rules of the unit are conferred to the IC.
This means that as far as the conferring of special rules to the IC , the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is being overridden by the the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules of the unit conferring to the IC.
In order for an IC to get the special rules of the unit it must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule which means that the special must provide something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC.
Simply specifying "unit" is not enough. The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of conferring the special rules of the unit.
A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" incorporates models attached to that collective (in this case a unit) and so the IC Special Rules rule is satisfied and the IC gets the Stubborn ability.
A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" is a lot more specific than "a unit with the special rule" in the case of determining whether special rules are conferred to the IC and in fact only the former will satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.
The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of determining if special rules are conferred, but a logical clause like "[a collective] that contains at least one model with the special rule" will specifically incorporate him along with any other attached models.
#################################################
Nosferatu, please mark your comments as HYWPI.
Only my argument is RAW.
You choose to flat-out ignore this 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.
Ability is a noun. Affect is being used as a verb. Effect is being used as the noun form of the verb affect. Definitions having been provided and not refuted. Who is confused?
Let me demonstrate:
col_impact wrote: Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.
Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.
Blind is a Special Rule which affects the unit which you just admitted, as highlighted. Stubborn is an ability which affects the unit, as noted numerous times.
You are the one who seem to not be able to separate effect and ability, since we are not combining them, as we have demonstrated.
Please do not try this tact of ignoring what the other person actually posts and taking it in the wrong direction. You've done it numerous times already, and it has reached well beyond trollish levels.
Ability is a noun. Affect is being used as a verb. Effect is being used as the noun form of the verb affect. Definitions having been provided and not refuted. Who is confused?
Let me demonstrate:
col_impact wrote: Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.
Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.
Blind is a Special Rule which affects the unit which you just admitted, as highlighted. Stubborn is an ability which affects the unit, as noted numerous times.
You are the one who seem to not be able to separate effect and ability, since we are not combining them, as we have demonstrated.
Please do not try this tact of ignoring what the other person actually posts and taking it in the wrong direction. You've done it numerous times already, and it has reached well beyond trollish levels.
Incorrect.
Your confusion continues.
And what you have highlighted in my post really only highlights your continued confusion and my correct usage.
Stick to what the BRB tells us.
Stubborn is an ability per the rules.
Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.
You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.
The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.
Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.
My argument is in full compliance with BRB definitions and usage.
I suggest you adhere to BRB definitions and usage because, until you do, your argument is just going to be continually filed under House Rule.
And what you have highlighted in my post really only highlights your continued confusion and my correct usage.
Stick to what the BRB tells us.
Stubborn is an ability per the rules.
Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.
You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.
The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.
Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.
My argument is in full compliance with BRB definitions and usage.
I suggest you adhere to BRB definitions and usage because, until you do, your argument is just going to be continually filed under House Rule.
And so he continues in the same rut not paying any attention to what is actually stated. I'd rather talk to Zathras, he makes more sense. And this is just becoming redundant comedy of misunderstanding, only bad.
And so he continues in the same rut not paying any attention to what is actually stated. I'd rather talk to Zathras, he makes more sense. And this is just becoming redundant comedy of misunderstanding, only bad.
I was correct in my response and exact in my use of the rules. If you want to leave the conversation because I have torn your argument to shreds and you have nothing left to say then that is fine. Feel free to pretend I am misunderstanding you.
col_impact wrote:I was correct in my response and exact in my use of the rules. If you want to leave the conversation because I have torn your argument to shreds and you have nothing left to say then that is fine. Feel free to pretend I am misunderstanding you.
Quite incorrect. You have misinterpreted what I have stated even after having been given a definition of what I had said and you have not refuted.
An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.
I have repeatedly stated:
Charistoph wrote:A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.
Charistoph wrote:Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.
I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.
Stubborn affects the unit. Yes, or no?
Doe Blind affect a unit. Yes, or no?
Is Blind a Special Rule? Yes, or no?
Yet, all you have responded with, in essence is:
col_impact wrote:Stubborn is an ability per the rules.
Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.
You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.
The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.
Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.
I have made a proper distinction between ability, affect, and effect. This distinction is provided by the central diction authority of the writer's home country, since the rulebook has made zero attempts to redefine these words.
An ability contains an effect. An ability affects something. Do you see the distinction? Probably not since you are using your voodoo grammar decoder.
Blind affects a unit targeted by the possessor of the rule. Stubborn affects a unit that possesses the rule.
You however, have paid as much attention to what has been written to counter you as you have made to the words in the rules. Have fun kicking your pricks.
col_impact wrote:I was correct in my response and exact in my use of the rules. If you want to leave the conversation because I have torn your argument to shreds and you have nothing left to say then that is fine. Feel free to pretend I am misunderstanding you.
Quite incorrect. You have misinterpreted what I have stated even after having been given a definition of what I had said and you have not refuted.
An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.
I have repeatedly stated:
Charistoph wrote:A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.
Charistoph wrote:Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.
I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.
Stubborn affects the unit. Yes, or no?
Doe Blind affect a unit. Yes, or no?
Is Blind a Special Rule? Yes, or no?
Yet, all you have responded with, in essence is:
col_impact wrote:Stubborn is an ability per the rules.
Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.
You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.
The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.
Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.
I have made a proper distinction between ability, affect, and effect. This distinction is provided by the central diction authority of the writer's home country, since the rulebook has made zero attempts to redefine these words.
An ability contains an effect. An ability affects something. Do you see the distinction? Probably not since you are using your voodoo grammar decoder.
Blind affects a unit targeted by the possessor of the rule. Stubborn affects a unit that possesses the rule.
You however, have paid as much attention to what has been written to counter you as you have made to the words in the rules. Have fun kicking your pricks.
The dictionary is not a rules source.
The dictionary can only act as a supplement to the rules.
And even so, abilities are not effects. If you have a sharpshooting ability does that mean sharpshooting affects you? No, the latter part of the sentence doesn't even make sense.
You are trying to twist meanings around so you can declare all special rules as ongoing effects so you ignore the IC Special Rules rule.
Sorry but you can't do that. Quit trying to circumvent plainly stated rules. Quit abusing the rules. Quit twisting meanings around.
Follow the rules and adhere to the definitions and usage of words in the BRB.
You need to point to rules to support what you say.
Stubborn is an ability per the rules. If someone has the Stubborn ability are the affected by Stubborn? No.
They simply are Stubborn - they have the Stubborn ability and enjoy the benefits of being Stubborn.
Co;l - your concession on this topic is noted. Your avoidance is now just comical.
RAW is proven. For anyone else who has bothered to get this far, talk to your gaming group-, otherwise the raw is pretty simple, some just dont seem to like the consequences of it, and will do ANYTHING to argue against it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Co;l - your concession on this topic is noted. Your avoidance is now just comical.
RAW is proven. For anyone else who has bothered to get this far, talk to your gaming group-, otherwise the raw is pretty simple, some just dont seem to like the consequences of it, and will do ANYTHING to argue against it.
Your content-less disruptive comment is noted.
RAW is proven by me. I am the one with the RAW argument
If you want to claim a RAW argument then you will have to actually present a RAW argument.
That means not ignoring this 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.
As long as you ignore that rule you cannot claim RAW.
Simply voting or claiming that you have a RAW argument is not enough. You have to actually prove your argument like I did.
My argument adheres to all the rules. It just doesn't make up this idea that "contains" is a requirement or that it any more "specifies" the IC thatpn "a unit". Of course, you know my argument follows all the rules, and that yours literally alters the actual written words to suit your position. Everyone here also knows this.
So, this is that last time I am going to post on this. A few people are intentionally ignoring parts of rules in favor for other sentences, you have to use the entire rule if you are going to quote RAW. NOT just the part that you think is relevant and stop reading after that.
The Rule for IC's in units. They become part of the unit for rules purposes.
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.
The rule for special rules.
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.
Normally yes, as stated most special rules do not confer to or from the IC. However the part that matters most in the last line, which is what keeps getting ignored. it states VERY specifically that " Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them."
The rule for Bounding lope states:
Spoiler:
Special rules that
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
This specifically refers to theunit. Which by RAW that IC's IS part of! and under the IC special rules section it refers to Special rules that confer to the unit. "" Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them." stated again just incase you missed it.
Now in all situations no special rules do not confer to the unit, however this is a rule that SPECIFICALLY says it does. You refer to RAW but conveniently ignore parts of a rule. You CAN NOT claim to be RAW and then leave out parts of the rule. That final line gives special rules that specifically state that they confer to confer to the ICAS part of the unit. PERIOD. Willful ignorance will not change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you go threw special rules, they specifically address this in many of the rules that refer to the unit. for example :
Spoiler:
Hatred
In the far future, hatred is a powerful ally.
This rule is often presented as Hatred (X) where X identifies a specific type of foe. If the
special rule does not specify a type of foe, then the unit has Hatred against everyone. This
can refer to a Faction, or a specific unit. For example, Hatred (Orks) means any model
with the Ork Faction, whilst Hatred (Big Meks) means only Big Meks. A model striking a
hated foe in close combat re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls during the first round of each
close combat.
is widely accepted to confer to the unit. HOWEVER it has the same wording. Referring to the unit. so the argument that this one does not, with the same wording holds no water.
Sorry to interrupt here, but Hatred was probably not the best example to demonstrate your point. Hatred only applies to the model, as stated in the last line of the rule. An IC that doesn't have Hatred would not get Hatred joining a unit with it as the wording clearly indicates "model", not "unit".
Tropic Thunder wrote: Sorry to interrupt here, but Hatred was probably not the best example to demonstrate your point. Hatred only applies to the model, as stated in the last line of the rule. An IC that doesn't have Hatred would not get Hatred joining a unit with it as the wording clearly indicates "model", not "unit".
Hatred actually applies to a unit, the context in which it speaks about a model is referring to a model attacking, not only that model having the special rule. As the rule says the unit has hatred.
We are debating a rule, which is what this thread is for. I don't think i have been belligerent or hateful in anyway, i don't see how rule #1 has been broken, at least on my end. I don't recall saying anything
Many intelligent minds have come together on this, we have established two main considerations to ponder:
- IC's do gain the units ability to Run and Charge.
- IC's prevent the Wulfen from Run and Charge if they join the unit.
We have gone beyond statement, to pointing out specifics as to why and how and where, to each of these.
Our further consideration hasn't yielded further light as to a definitive Yes or No, but of perspectives that in each regard can be seen as valid - dependingly.
I can, and I don't think I'm alone here, now take these thoughts to the Table and share each with my opponents - and we'll be able to come down on one side or the other; I doubt I'll find the same conclusion with every opponent I face, and I'm not exactly sure if I'm down for "when in doubt, don't" as that's a sad way to enjoy a game.
I will do my research on what the main Tournament FAQ's have to say, and if we as players still cannot find a final determination (as my friends enjoy truth over ease, typically hehe) then we'll roll off on it and let this be our determination.
Warmachine is made by a company who cares much more than GW of their players best interests, wishes to develop well rounded, sound, game design.
It's on 'Page 5' that if a rule isn't a simple yes or no, roll off on it and let the game continue! To which, I wholeheartedly agree.
I will also say, that no one will have fun playing a player who's interested more in yammering out textual arguments over their own feelings/considerations, and that though they may choose to go ahead and deal with a game wouldn't feel so inclined to play any further games with such an individual.
I will not be depending on this rule for my games, for my friends sake and for my own as well...
Keep an imperfect game, as a game please. I ask this on behalf of all 40k'ers everywhere who also have to deal with an imperfect game created by a money-driven developer, though so incredibly fun (!) Let's just play ball!
Dyslexican32 wrote: We are debating a rule, which is what this thread is for. I don't think i have been belligerent or hateful in anyway, i don't see how rule #1 has been broken, at least on my end. I don't recall saying anything
I don't think Fragile's statement was directed at you, Dyslexican.
Bounding Lope: This UNIT can Run and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed charge rolls. Bounding Lope is not a Special Rule. It's an ability in the unit's codex entry. It doesn't need to confer, A because it's not a Special Rule and B, because the IC for all rules purposes is no longer a separate entity as long as he/she is a part of the UNIT he/she joined. A Special Rule, as defined by the BRB, and found in the "Special Rules" section of the BRB, like FnP, which a Wulfen MODEL has, as listed in it's codex entry, is not conferred to an IC joining the unit. The difference is night and day.
LinkXx wrote: Bounding Lope: This UNIT can Run and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed charge rolls. Bounding Lope is not a Special Rule. It's an ability in the unit's codex entry. It doesn't need to confer, A because it's not a Special Rule and B, because the IC for all rules purposes is no longer a separate entity as long as he/she is a part of the UNIT he/she joined. A Special Rule, as defined by the BRB, and found in the "Special Rules" section of the BRB, like FnP, which a Wulfen MODEL has, as listed in it's codex entry, is not conferred to an IC joining the unit. The difference is night and day.
Incorrect. Check the rules for datasheets.
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.
Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.
In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....
nosferatu1001 wrote: Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.
In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....
Let him have it. It was at least accurate without trying to define it. He was correcting the concept that Bounding Lope was not a Special Rule, which was incorrect.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.
In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....
Incorrect.
"A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.
Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.
We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.
Fragile wrote: Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.
We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.
Those two aren't connected.
The IC Special Rules rule provides specific exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of special rules of the unit.
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.
Are you able to point to a specific rule which would allow IC psykers to be considered separate for some rules purposes while attached to a unit like I am able to in the case of special rules and the IC Special Rules rule?
col_impact wrote: "A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.
And yet, the "contains at least one model" doesn't include the IC at all, so that obviously isn't the key phrase for the IC to benefit from it, either. It can only be found when the unit ignores negative leadership Modifiers, and the IC counts as part of that unit.
But we've been over that so many times by now, I guess some people just can't leave well enough alone.
col_impact wrote: "A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.
And yet, the "contains at least one model" doesn't include the IC at all, so that obviously isn't the key phrase for the IC to benefit from it, either. It can only be found when the unit ignores negative leadership Modifiers, and the IC counts as part of that unit.
But we've been over that so many times by now, I guess some people just can't leave well enough alone.
Incorrect. "Contains at least one model" is scoped to include the IC as the rule scans for which models have the special rule. "Contains" looks beyond the original unit and considers models attached to the unit (which the IC is) even in the case where the IC is not considered wholly a part of the unit (such as in the case of conferring special rules). This is very basic set logic which I guess you need a refresher on. But we have already been over how you don't adhere to logic.
Fragile wrote: Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.
We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.
Those two aren't connected.
The IC Special Rules rule provides specific exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of special rules of the unit.
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.
Are you able to point to a specific rule which would allow IC psykers to be considered separate for some rules purposes while attached to a unit like I am able to in the case of special rules and the IC Special Rules rule?
You completely miss the point.
You cannot have the rules both ways. So your stance is that a Psyker IC cannot manifest powers ?
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. "Contains at least one model" is scoped to include the IC as the rule scans for which models have the special rule. "Contains" looks beyond the original unit and considers models attached to the unit (which the IC is) even in the case where the IC is not considered wholly a part of the unit (such as in the case of conferring special rules). This is very basic set logic which I guess you need a refresher on. But we have already been over how you don't adhere to logic.
"Contains at least one model" is a phrase to check if possession is already established, not seeking to provide it to others.
"Contains at least one model" only considers the IC IF the IC possesses the rule initially. If the IC does not have the rule, then it is a phrase not referencing the IC at all and so therefore not including them, period.
The only portion that an IC without the rule can be referenced in "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule" is in the very first portion of "a unit". And even that condition has to be established prior to referencing this rule via the IC's Joining and Leaving a Unit rules.
"Contains" = possession established, not possession shared. Hard to use base logic to go against the actual words provided, but you seem to want to continue doing that. Unless you want to properly quote and reference that states that "contains" is provided an actual different definition by the rulebook, we'll consider this done.
