So if an aspiring sorcerer from a unit of rubrics casts force does the whole unit get +1 to their invulnerable or just the sorcerer? I would believe that the whole unit gets it as it states if the unit is effected by a blessing then they get the benefit but I've just watched a video from mini war gaming (granted I think they get rules wrong in nearly all of their videos) and they believe that just the sorcerer gets the benefit. What do you guys think?

I think whole unit.

The way Force is worded you cast Force on the whole unit and the force weapons in the unit cause instant death. The result may be that the sorcerer is the only one who gets an effect, but the whole unit got blessed. So they all benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch

 CrownAxe wrote:
The way Force is worded you cast Force on the whole unit and the force weapons in the unit cause instant death. The result may be that the sorcerer is the only one who gets an effect, but the whole unit got blessed. So they all benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch

This. Also keep in mind the UNIT needs to be blessed, not just a model. If the Aspiring Sorc used, say, Boon of Mutation he would get the blessing and the roll on the Boon table but this would not give the +1 invul save to anything.

Hmm that's a bit more debatable. The character getting the gift of mutation is still part of the unit, so you could say the unit has been affected by a blessing.

No, only a part of the unit (the one model) has been affected by the blessing in that case.

 doctortom wrote:
No, only a part of the unit (the one model) has been affected by the blessing in that case.

Correct, the unit has been affected by the blessing. Nowhere does it state "each model affected by the blessing" it only states that the unit receives the buff.
If only a model is affected, then there is no unit that can get the buff to invul, you can't have it both ways. Ie, if you cast a blessing on a model in a unit, the unit is blessed.

I've never noticed that force effects the entire unit, does this mean if an exalted sorcerer joined the unit and cast force not only would the unit get +1 invulnerable saves but the aspiring sorcerers force weapon would also cause instant death?

 CrownAxe wrote:
The way Force is worded you cast Force on the whole unit and the force weapons in the unit cause instant death. The result may be that the sorcerer is the only one who gets an effect, but the whole unit got blessed. So they all benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch

So wait. If an Exalted Sorcerer is also attached to the same group, who both Psykers get Force since they both have Force weapons?

 EnTyme wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The way Force is worded you cast Force on the whole unit and the force weapons in the unit cause instant death. The result may be that the sorcerer is the only one who gets an effect, but the whole unit got blessed. So they all benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch

So wait. If an Exalted Sorcerer is also attached to the same group, who both Psykers get Force since they both have Force weapons?

Asked the same question haha but I checked the wording and that seems the case, don't need brotherhood for force it seems.

 doctortom wrote:
No, only a part of the unit (the one model) has been affected by the blessing in that case.

That's the same as Force on a Rubric unit, though. It only affects one model, the Aspiring Sorcerer, unless you have ICs with Force Weapons joined to the unit. Only one model is affected by the blessing.

Force "targets the psyker and his unit", true. But the wording of Blessing of Tzeentch has nothing to do with targeting.

Honestly, there needs to be a FAQ on this one.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, only a part of the unit (the one model) has been affected by the blessing in that case.

That's the same as Force on a Rubric unit, though. It only affects one model, the Aspiring Sorcerer, unless you have ICs with Force Weapons joined to the unit. Only one model is affected by the blessing.

Force "targets the psyker and his unit", true. But the wording of Blessing of Tzeentch has nothing to do with targeting.

Honestly, there needs to be a FAQ on this one.

At the time I made the comment you quoted, the discussion was Boon of Mutation. Force "targets the psyker and his unit", but Boon of Mutation doesn't target the unit. The unit doesn't get Blessing of Tzeentch from Boon of Mutation being cast. They do get it, however, from Force being cast as the blessing affects the unit. In this, I disagree with you that Blessing of Tzeentch has a lot to do with targeting - if a unit is the target of a blessing, then the unit being targeted by the blessing will also get the enchancement from Blessing of Tzeentch.

Look at it this way, though.

Force affects the Aspiring Sorcerer's weapon. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

Boon of Mutation can affect the Aspiring Sorcerer. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

You're treating "targets" as equivalent to "affects". But technically, they aren't the same thing.

Bonus question: If we cast Boon on a Daemon Prince, does it trigger Blessing of Tzeentch as a single model? Or is it disqualified as it doesn't "target a unit"?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look at it this way, though.

Force affects the Aspiring Sorcerer's weapon. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

Boon of Mutation can affect the Aspiring Sorcerer. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

You're treating "targets" as equivalent to "affects". But technically, they aren't the same thing.

Bonus question: If we cast Boon on a Daemon Prince, does it trigger Blessing of Tzeentch as a single model? Or is it disqualified as it doesn't "target a unit"?

You yourself gave a quote saying it "targets the psyker and his unit". That's not saying it targets the weapons, it targets the unit. Targets means it is cast on the unit. That's good enough for Blessing of Tzeentch.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look at it this way, though.

Force affects the Aspiring Sorcerer's weapon. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

Boon of Mutation can affect the Aspiring Sorcerer. It doesn't affect the Rubrics, at all.

You're treating "targets" as equivalent to "affects". But technically, they aren't the same thing.

Bonus question: If we cast Boon on a Daemon Prince, does it trigger Blessing of Tzeentch as a single model? Or is it disqualified as it doesn't "target a unit"?

Force does affect the rubrics. All their force weapons are ID. The fact that they don't have any force weapons means they don't benefit from that blessing, but it is still there.

And a daemon prince is a unit, it just happens to be a unit of one model.

This is about specificity of language.

Look closely at the wording of Blessing of Tzeentch.

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

Where is "targets a unit" part of the criteria? It isn't. So we need to break down "affected".

If Rubrics don't have Force Weapons, how can Force possibly affect them?

Yoyoyo wrote:
This is about specificity of language.

Look closely at the wording of Blessing of Tzeentch.

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

Where is "targets a unit" part of the criteria? It isn't. So we need to break down "affected".

If Rubrics don't have Force Weapons, how can Force possibly affect them?

They still get any force weapons they have activated - even if they don't have any, that blessing is still in place affecting them.

The definition of affect:

have an effect on; make a difference to

I think you need to start here if you want to rules lawyer.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The definition of affect:

have an effect on; make a difference to

I think you need to start here if you want to rules lawyer.

I think you need to read up on blessings.

From page 26 - "Blessings target one or more friendly units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the start of the Psyker's next Psychic phase. Blessings can affect units that are locked in close combat and can affect the Psyker himself. The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative."

So, they're cast on units and the benefits of the blessing last for a round, They're not making the distinction you are. I'd say you are the one trying to rules lawyer by trying to make the artificial distinction here about the benefit vs who it's cast on.

So, does that mean Boon is cast on a unit, even if it targets a single model?

Boon targets as single Character within 2", usually the psyker himself. It does not effect the unit.

Force targets the entire unit. All models in the unit gain "Force" but only models equipped with weapons that have the Force special rule gain Instant Death on their attacks. All Psykers know Force. Incidentally, Zoanthropes (or any Tyrannid psyker) could also cast Force if they really wanted to, they just gain no real benefit from it other then throwing dice for the lols.

Blessing states that it triggers when the "unit" comes under the effect of a Blessing. Force fulfills this criteria while powers that effect a single model, such as Boon, do not.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
It does not effect the unit.

Why not? It can literally remove the unit's sergeant!

Yoyoyo wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
It does not effect the unit.

Why not? It can literally remove the unit's sergeant!

What does Boon of Mutation say for what it targets? That's why not. Targeting a single character is not targeting a unit.

Targeting is not the criteria of what confers the USR

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

It's "affected". It's right there!

Now, look at a focused witchfire. It targets a single model, but the consequences clearly affect the unit.

Can we really argue otherwise?

(this is why I expect a FAQ at some point...)

Yoyoyo wrote:
Targeting is not the criteria of what confers the USR

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

It's "affected". It's right there!

Now, look at a focused witchfire. It targets a single model, but the consequences clearly affect the unit.

Can we really argue otherwise?

(this is why I expect a FAQ at some point...)

First off, go back and reread focused witchfire. It does NOT affect the unit. Based upon the roll, the power manifests against either the target model you choose, or the closest model in the target unit. In neither case does it say the entire unit is affected. So, the consequences clearly do NOT affect the unit, only one model.

Now, does Boon of Mutation give any indication that it affects more than the character it is targeting? . Force affects the unit it targets. If it didn't, you wouldn't have anybody besides the psyker having a force blade activated by it, which is clearly not the case from its wording.

Look at another case.

Some spells target the psyker, like Shrouding or TK Dome, which then confer an aura to models within 6" or 12" of the caster?

If 50% of the Rubrics are within range of the aura, and 50% of the Rubric receives no benefit, does the unit receive Blessing of Tzeentch?

There is a clear disconnect between a unit being targeted, and a unit being affected.

Those powers say they target the psyker and say that the Psyker and models within range get certain benefits. It doesn't say the unit benefits. If the psyker is an IC, he'd benefit by being a unit on his own., but the power talks about affecting models, not units. This is unlike Force, which targets units and bestows an effect on the unit.

Let's say 100% of the Rubrics are in range. Do they now benefit?

Or are you arguing that Force confers a blessing -- when it often affects a single model -- and TK Dome does not, when it might affect every model in the unit?

Once again -- the criteria cannot be "targets". One, because it's wrong. Second, because you end up with a complete mess!

I'm not arguing that Force confers a blessing. Force says it's a blessing, and it targets the unit, and there is not an indication that it goes counter to what the rules for Blessings in the main rulebook state.

When the blessing goes on the unit it targets, then the unit is affected.

And, please, just saying "when it often affects a single model" try to be more precise. Are you talking about affecting the pysker himself? If it's an IC, then they psyker is a unit.

TK dome affects models, not units, when you read the power. Your quote above states if any unit with VotLW is affected by a blessing. Are you trying to say that models = units? You aren't told that units are affected, only models are being affected (other than the psyker itself, who if an IC may count as a unit for this). So, why would you assume that something affecting only models would trigger something that states units must be affected?

Are you arguing that TK Dome doesn't benefit a unit, even when it affects every model in the squad?

What about a Daemon Prince which casts TK Dome on itself?

Are you arguing that it benefits units when it states friendly units when it states that it is models getting the benefit?

And, what you're trying to argue about now is the opposite of what you were arguing before. A unit is targeted by Force, and the unit benefits. You're trying to argue the unit doesn't benefit even though it is the target and it gets the benefit of the Force power.

I'm asking you very simple questions. Socratic method and that.

1) If TK Dome affects every model in the squad, does the squad recieve Blessing of Tzeentch?

2) If TK Dome affects 50% of the models in the squad, does the squad receive Blessing of Tzeentch?

3) If a Daemon Prince casts TK Dome on itself, does the DP receive Blessing of Tzeentch?

I've given you answers. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you haven't had them.

TK affects the psyker and models. Something that is activated by a unit getting a blessing would not be activated by models getting being affected by a blessing by RAW. You would need a blessing that affects units, not models.

TK Dome says that it targets the psyker, and affects the psyker and models within a range. So, do the models within range get Blessing of Tzeentch from that? By RAW, no. RAI may be different and might be argued, but you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected. Now, with them saying the pysker, that is more debatable since psykers are often ICs, so an argument could be made there that he'd be affected - but there's also an argument that it might only be treating the psker as a model.

TK Dome isn't something like Fire Shield, where it says it targets a unit and the unit gets a cover save and some other benefits; it only discusses the psyker and models in range. You sound like you expect a unit to be affected if all the models are affected, but that isn't backed up by RAW due to the statement having only models being affected. As I said before, RAI and HIWPI may differ, but we are arguing on a RAW basis here.

 doctortom wrote:
you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected

Units are comprised of models.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected

Units are comprised of models.

So you say something that affects models gives the benefit to a unit?

 doctortom wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected

Units are comprised of models.

So you say something that affects models gives the benefit to a unit?

i

One could actually make a plausible argument for this. Blessing of Tzeentch does not require the unit be targetted by a blessing, only that it be affected by one. Even if only one model receives a benefit the blessing still has affected the unit in some way. I don't know if that is the intent but I can see the justification.

How do you affect a model and avoid the unit? A model is most often in a unit, so if you affect a model you must affect a unit.

Is there a special class of powers that dont affect units?

If you have a lone IC casting boon on himself, he's either affecting his unit or not. If the spell just targets his model how is it affecting the unit? Wheres the difference between being alone in a unit and together with other models in a unit.

According to you doctortom an IC wouldnt get his unit blessed by boon?

*edit* nevermind you have answered regarding force. boon then?

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected

Units are comprised of models.

So you say something that affects models gives the benefit to a unit?

i

One could actually make a plausible argument for this. Blessing of Tzeentch does not require the unit be targetted by a blessing, only that it be affected by one. Even if only one model receives a benefit the blessing still has affected the unit in some way. I don't know if that is the intent but I can see the justification.

No, it doesn't work that way. One model receiving a benefit does not mean the unit has the benefit. This is along the line of special rules that say "a unit with this special rule" as compared to "a unit that has at least one model with this special rule". Blessing of Tzeentch is the equivalent of other special rules that say "a unit with this special rule". One model with the blessing would not trigger the benefit. The unit doesn't have the benefit, it only went to one model in the unit in your case. Part of a unit receiving a blessing is not the same as a full unit receiving a blessing.

 doctortom wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
you can't argue the that unit is affected when it's the models in the unit that are affected

Units are comprised of models.

So you say something that affects models gives the benefit to a unit?

i

One could actually make a plausible argument for this. Blessing of Tzeentch does not require the unit be targetted by a blessing, only that it be affected by one. Even if only one model receives a benefit the blessing still has affected the unit in some way. I don't know if that is the intent but I can see the justification.

No, it doesn't work that way. One model receiving a benefit does not mean the unit has the benefit. This is along the line of special rules that say "a unit with this special rule" as compared to "a unit that has at least one model with this special rule". Blessing of Tzeentch is the equivalent of other special rules that say "a unit with this special rule". One model with the blessing would not trigger the benefit. The unit doesn't have the benefit, it only went to one model in the unit in your case. Part of a unit receiving a blessing is not the same as a full unit receiving a blessing.

You keep saying benefit. If Blessing of Tzeentch said "a unit that benefits from a blessing" i think there would be a much stronger case for requiring the entire unit to be blessed. It doesn't say benefit, it says affected. To the best of my knowledge the rules don't explicitly define what affected means. If I am wrong on that please tell me where it is defined because I genuinely want to know. In the absence of clear rules definition though I can easily see how a unit would be considered affected by a blessing even if only one model benefited from it.

Again, I haven't made a firm decision on what I think is the right approach. My inclination is to think the entire unit needs to be in the scope of the blessing effect, but as of yet no one has shown that is strict RAW. And let's be honest, you need look no further than multiple psykers in a unit to see that GW is not exactly clear or consistent when considering the interactions between units and the models in them.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You keep saying benefit. If Blessing of Tzeentch said "a unit that benefits from a blessing" i think there would be a much stronger case for requiring the entire unit to be blessed. It doesn't say benefit, it says affected. To the best of my knowledge the rules don't explicitly define what affected means. If I am wrong on that please tell me where it is defined because I genuinely want to know. In the absence of clear rules definition though I can easily see how a unit would be considered affected by a blessing even if only one model benefited from it.

If something benefited by something, it is affected by that something. If something is hindered by something, it is affected by that something.

Without an actual redefinition provided by the rulebook, "affect" means "to act on" or "produce an effect or change in". "Benefit" means "to good to" or "be of service to", which means you are "acting on" that one in a desirable way. So "benefit" is just a more defined form of "affect", making such a distinction you are bringing up rather pointless.

If it went the other way, you would have a point, as if the rule required a Power to benefit the unit, then just anything affecting it wouldn't work, as a hindering may be ignored.

 Charistoph wrote:
Without an actual redefinition provided by the rulebook, "affect" means "to act on" or "produce an effect or change in". "Benefit" means "to good to" or "be of service to", which means you are "acting on" that one in a desirable way. So "benefit" is just a more defined form of "affect", making such a distinction you are bringing up rather pointless.

You don't think a unit is changed if a model in it has new or altered rules due to the blessing?

And benefit being "more defined" does not make it equivalent to affect and when evaluating rules the word choice can very easily and often change the meaning. So I do not at all think it a pointless distinction.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You don't think a unit is changed if a model in it has new or altered rules due to the blessing?

There is a noted distinction in the game as to when a unit is affected and when a model is not.

The best example of this being in Move Through Cover. The UNIT gains an extra D6 when rolling to get through Difficult Terrain. The MODEL automatically passes Dangerous Terrain Tests.

So when a rule says a model is affected, the unit as an entity is not affected.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And benefit being "more defined" does not make it equivalent to affect and when evaluating rules the word choice can very easily and often change the meaning. So I do not at all think it a pointless distinction.

It is only pointless in one direction. If something is benefited, it is affected, period. If something is affected, it may be hindered or it may be benefited. Note the distinctions.

"Benefit" is a form of "affect", so not completely synonymous, one is one aspect of the other. Unless you can demonstrate how something can benefit something without affecting it?

Your example shows how the Move Through Cover USR interacts differently with models and units, but it doesn't talk about affecting things at all so can't lead you to any assumptions about how game rules view the term affect.

Right if hand i can't think of any situation in which something I'd benefited without being affected and concede that there is likely not one. I can however point out the inverse which illustrates why you cannot use the terms interchangeably. The blessing Sanctuary causes all daemons in its area of effect to treat all terrain as dangerous. If that daemon happened to be a Thousand Sons obliterator and not in the caster's unit it would be affected by a blessing, but not receiving a benefit. The only effects it receives are negative. If still argue it receives BoT though because it is affected by a blessing.

What about an IC that is attached to a unit who is then targeted and wounded by a precision shot with soul blaze? Wouldn't the unit get soul blazed because that IC is now a member of said unit.

I believe the whole unit would gain the blessing of tzeentch if any member of a unit gains an effect from a blessing. When joining a unit the IC becomes unified with it. Therefore, if he gains an effect through a blessing; the rest of the unit was affected even without gaining an effect.

thoughts?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Your example shows how the Move Through Cover USR interacts differently with models and units, but it doesn't talk about affecting things at all so can't lead you to any assumptions about how game rules view the term affect.

Then you are blind to what "affect" means.

If I asked you, "How does Move Through Cover affect the unit?", what would be your response?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Right if hand i can't think of any situation in which something I'd benefited without being affected and concede that there is likely not one. I can however point out the inverse which illustrates why you cannot use the terms interchangeably. The blessing Sanctuary causes all daemons in its area of effect to treat all terrain as dangerous. If that daemon happened to be a Thousand Sons obliterator and not in the caster's unit it would be affected by a blessing, but not receiving a benefit. The only effects it receives are negative. If still argue it receives BoT though because it is affected by a blessing.

And you rather demonstrate the point then. When someone says a Blessing is affecting something, they can also show something is being affected by it. But if a rule is looking for something affecting it, it would be looking for both benefiting and hindering.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Your example shows how the Move Through Cover USR interacts differently with models and units, but it doesn't talk about affecting things at all so can't lead you to any assumptions about how game rules view the term affect.

Right if hand i can't think of any situation in which something I'd benefited without being affected and concede that there is likely not one. I can however point out the inverse which illustrates why you cannot use the terms interchangeably. The blessing Sanctuary causes all daemons in its area of effect to treat all terrain as dangerous. If that daemon happened to be a Thousand Sons obliterator and not in the caster's unit it would be affected by a blessing, but not receiving a benefit. The only effects it receives are negative. If still argue it receives BoT though because it is affected by a blessing.

Think of the special rule as a benefit then, if it helps. The unit gets the Blessing of Tzeentch if it all has a benefit, this would be the equivalent with USRs where there is the requirement for the unit to have a special rule. If the entire unit doesn't have the benefit, the unit doesn't get the bonus to invulnerable saves from Blessing of Tzeentch even if some of the modelss would have it. To make another analogy, think of the blessing as terminator armor. and the Blessing of Tzeentch as getting to deep strike. You might have one or two models with terminator armor (benefiting from the blessing), but the unit as a whole can't deep strike (get the blessing of Tzeentch) unless the entire unit has terminator armor (blessing affecting it). You don't get the bonus from Blessing of Tzeentch if a blessing is only affecting some models and not affecting the unit. To think of it another way, Blessing of Tzeentch only has permission to give the buff if the unit is affected. If you only have models affected but not the unit affected, you don't have permission to have the buff. Part of a unit being affected is not the same as THE unit being affected, as by definition only part of it is affected while part is unaffected. That would be RAW for a situation like this.

if some models of a unit are being affected and gain an effect from said affection; then the whole unit has been affected just the whole unit has not been given an effect.

the rule says affected not "if a model gains a new usr" or "if a unit/model gains a new effect"

DOC, you seems to be messing up effect and affect

There's only three things that matter.

- Definition of Blessing of Tz
- Definition of a Unit
- Definition of "affects"

Unless we have common ground on all of those, consensus will be impossible.

You're getting to hung up on the benefit vs affect thing. That was just too point out the terms can't be used interchangeablely.

You are saying RAW a blessing that affects a model in the unit does not affect the unit, it must affect the entire unit. I'm asking where that is written. I can find rules that say "a unit with at least one model" and rules that say "a unit comprised entirely of models. . .". Since there is precedent at both ends for how they word things you can't say definitely that either indicates how we should interpret a unit being affected.

naturalwaytrainer wrote:
if some models of a unit are being affected and gain an effect from said affection; then the whole unit has been affected just the whole unit has not been given an effect.

the rule says affected not "if a model gains a new usr" or "if a unit/model gains a new effect"

DOC, you seems to be messing up effect and affect

This is simply untrue. If some models are affected then is the whole unit affected? No, because I can show you that there are models in the unit that are not affected. Also, if you don't have the entire unit affected, then by definition the unit isn't affected - having some models affected is not the same as having the whole unit affected.

If BoT said entire unit we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where do rules state "the unit" means "the entire unit"?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
If BoT said entire unit we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where do rules state "the unit" means "the entire unit"?

It says "the unit". It doesn't say "a unit with at least one model benefiting from a blessing gains...". It only says "the unit", which by definitiion means the entire unit. In order to try to assert otherwise, you have to be able to show where something that states "the unit" as a conditional trigger still works if you only have a model or two but don't have "the unit" qualifying.

what about a model that already has the stealth and shrouded who is then blessed by a psychic power that gives stealth? was that model affected even though it could gain no further effects from the blessing? would they get the BoT? I think so

 doctortom wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
If BoT said entire unit we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where do rules state "the unit" means "the entire unit"?

It says "the unit". It doesn't say "a unit with at least one model benefiting from a blessing gains...". It only says "the unit", which by definitiion means the entire unit. In order to try to assert otherwise, you have to be able to show where something that states "the unit" as a conditional trigger still works if you only have a model or two but don't have "the unit" qualifying.

There are also rules that say "a unit comprised entirely of models with". This rule days neither. Why is your interpretation based on a completely different way of writing a rule more important than this completely different way? Precedent is only important as a way of evaluating rules when the precedent is consistent.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
If BoT said entire unit we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where do rules state "the unit" means "the entire unit"?

It says "the unit". It doesn't say "a unit with at least one model benefiting from a blessing gains...". It only says "the unit", which by definitiion means the entire unit. In order to try to assert otherwise, you have to be able to show where something that states "the unit" as a conditional trigger still works if you only have a model or two but don't have "the unit" qualifying.

There are also rules that say "a unit comprised entirely of models with". This rule days neither. Why is your interpretation based on a completely different way of writing a rule more important than this completely different way? Precedent is only important as a way of evaluating rules when the precedent is consistent.

Well, the precedent has been consistent about not affecting entire units if one model has something and the wording isn't "unit with one or more models with this". And, there's been no evidence presented to back up the other claim that one model being affected by something makes the entire unit count as being affected without wording like that.

Also for consideration:

FAQs have clarified that if a model in a unit has a different faction from the rest of the unit, the unit is considered to have both/all of those factions. So at least in some cases traits of individual models do confer to the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similar rulings for Hatred and Preferred Enemy. If any model in the target unit has the defined traits then the unit does.

If units are comprised of models, what affects models by necessity affects units.

The USA is comprised of states. If California happens to fall into the ocean, it's pretty obvious it affects the entire country.

That"s the logical analogy, at least.

Yoyoyo wrote:
If units are comprised of models, what affects models by necessity affects units.

The USA is comprised of states. If California happens to fall into the ocean, it's pretty obvious it affects the entire country.

That"s the logical analogy, at least.

Don't bring real world examples into the discussion, Tenet #3.

If one model has Relentless, then another model without Relentless fires a Rapid Fire Weapon, the unit can still Charge? One model is affected by Relentless, does that mean all the models in the unit are?

That is what you are suggesting.

 Charistoph wrote:
If one model has Relentless, then another model without Relentless fires a Rapid Fire Weapon, the unit can still Charge? One model is affected by Relentless, does that mean all the models in the unit are?

That is what you are suggesting.

No, you're misinterpreting.

The criteria for Blessing of Tzeentch NEVER states "all models must be affected". You have to argue the actual criteria. Not stuff that has not relationship whatsoever!

What happens when a Relentless unit is joined by a non-Relentless IC, all of whom Rapidfire? Does one model affect the entire unit?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If one model has Relentless, then another model without Relentless fires a Rapid Fire Weapon, the unit can still Charge? One model is affected by Relentless, does that mean all the models in the unit are?

That is what you are suggesting.

No, you're misinterpreting.

The criteria for Blessing of Tzeentch NEVER states "all models must be affected". You have to argue the actual criteria. Not stuff that has not relationship whatsoever!

What happens when a Relentless unit is joined by a non-Relentless IC, all of whom Rapidfire? Does one model affect the entire unit?

But you are stating that if something affects the model, it affects the unit. The other models are part of the unit. Therefore, if one model is affected all models are affected.

This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

 Charistoph wrote:
But you are stating that if something affects the model, it affects the unit.

Maybe "affects" is what needs to be considered in context. Which will feed into this next section.

naturalwaytrainer wrote:
what about a model that already has the stealth and shrouded who is then blessed by a psychic power that gives stealth? was that model affected even though it could gain no further effects from the blessing? would they get the BoT? I think so

Wow. Good question. Really good. Looking at Blessing of Tzeentch:

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

I mean, I'd like to say yes. The unit has *recieved* a blessing. But a unit needs to be *affected* by a blessing. Multiple instances of Stealth do not stack. I don't know of any other coincidental effects from stacking USRs. The unit is unaffected. And if the unit is not affected, it cannot gain Blessing of Tzeentch.

Anyone else want to take a stab at this one?

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

What is a unit? A group of models. If you are saying a model is affected that the group of models are affected, then...

What's the actual rulebook definition of a unit?

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

What is a unit? A group of models. If you are saying a model is affected that the group of models are affected, then...

Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

I don't think we can have an answer to this unless we figure out what "affected by" actually means. There is no rule defining what it means therefore we cannot really speak on the RAW aspect of it. Here's some examples why:

1. Prescience blessing. This is the easiest example. Obviously the whole unit gets targeted and a change in its status occurs. The unit should get the Blessing.

2. Force. The whole unit is targeted. The whole unit gets a change in status on their weapons with the Force special rule. Not all the models in the unit have force weapons. So the first question arises. Does "affected by" requires a change in active status? Does the unit get the Blessing because they are targeted? Do they get it because they are bestowed the blessing? Do they not because even though they get the blessing, their active status does not change? Is the unit champion the only one to gain the blessing because he has a force weapon? Or is it that even he doesn't get it because the unit champion is not a unit, so a "unit" is not affected by casting Force?

3. Boon of Tzeentch. Does a lone character (ie a Daemon Prince) casting Boon get the Blessing? Simply put, is a solo Daemon Prince a unit? Is a solo DP ever able to gain the Blessing if he is not a unit? Is Magnus ever able to get the Blessing or is Magnus not a unit and therefore he may never get the blessing? And moving forward, does a sorc inside a unit casting Boon get the Blessing on himself or the whole unit? Is he even getting blessed at all by the same virtue that he is not a unit?

4. Telekinetic Dome. Targets models, not units. So let's take an example. A lone Daemon Prince casts Telekinetic Dome. The radius covers himself, a full unit of rubric marines, half a unit of rubric marines and half a unit of havocs. Who gets the Blessing of Tzeentch? The full unit of rubrics gets the blessing, but it is not being targeted and there is no change in their status, since they already have a better invul. The second rubric unit is not even whole within the radius of the spell. Finally, the havocs do indeed see a change in their status but still, not the whole unit is within the range of the spell. Who gets the blessing? Is it no-one? Is it everyone? Is it some units and no others? Is it only some models from each unit?

5. Mental Fortitude. It is cast on a rubric unit, a unit of havocs and a fleeing unit of havocs. Who gets the blessing? Does the rubric get it despite of no change in status? Do the two units of havocs get it, even if one is not fleeing at the moment?

6. Hammerhand. The spell only targets the psyker, but he AND his unit get +2 str. Who gets the blessing of tzeentch in this situation?

Overall, unless we figure out exactly what "affects" means and what a unit is or is not, we cannot arrive at a verdict. Which should surprise no-one given that GW writes the rules.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

Because that is how the rules all operate. When something identifies a model being affected, only that model is noted as being affected. When something identifies a unit being affected, all the models in the unit are being affected. This is how Run, Charge, Fleet, Deep Strike, Stubborn, and a whole host of other rules operate. As opposed to how Counter-Attack, Relentless, Daemon, Eternal Warrior, and a whole host of other rules operate.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

Because that is how the rules all operate. When something identifies a model being affected, only that model is noted as being affected. When something identifies a unit being affected, all the models in the unit are being affected. This is how Run, Charge, Fleet, Deep Strike, Stubborn, and a whole host of other rules operate. As opposed to how Counter-Attack, Relentless, Daemon, Eternal Warrior, and a whole host of other rules operate.

Those rules also state in their rules text how they interact witn models vs entire units. As I've stated before, in the absence of that text you can't assume they work the same way.

Also as I stated before, FAQ has made it clear that a unit with one Eldar model is an Eldar unit. A unit with one psyker model is a psyker unit. Why is a unit with one model affected by a blessing not an affected by blessing unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Those rules also state in their rules text how they interact witn models vs entire units. As I've stated before, in the absence of that text you can't assume they work the same way.

Then why are you assuming something that states it affects a model is affecting a unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Also as I stated before, FAQ has made it clear that a unit with one Eldar model is an Eldar unit. A unit with one psyker model is a psyker unit. Why is a unit with one model affected by a blessing not an affected by blessing unit?

Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level. Psyker rules are so borked up it's ridiculous, and a bad example.

A blessing affecting a model no more affects a unit than Relentless affects the unit. The model's interactions may involve the unit, such as a Relentless model firing a Rapid Fire Weapon not preventing a unit from Charging, but the unit is not actively benefiting from Relentless. Relentless is only actually benefiting the model itself.

The criteria is not benefiting, targeting, or anything else. It's "affecting".

Does one model firing without Relentless affect the unit?

Also, nice sum up, topaxy. It's nice to have a comprehensive overview.

I have a unit with no blessing.

I cast a blessing that only affects a single model in that unit.

It's that unit, in its entirety, exactly the same as before the blessing was cast?

Since the answer is no the logical conclusion is the unit had been attracted by the blessing.

I'm not saying this is correct since it is also not supported by rules text, but it is the logical conclusion to make. I would welcome proof otherwise but so far all I have seen is that other rules which have additional clarifying text work your way.

Truthfully I don't think there are rules to answer one way or the other. But if that is the case it still leaves me inclined to go with logic as the determinant.

And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

It is not a bad example, because how Relentless affects the model has an indirect affect on the unit, and we have been talking about how a Blessing which specifically affects a model is supposed to affect a unit to activate the Blessing of Tzeentch.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

It is not a bad example, because how Relentless affects the model has an indirect affect on the unit, and we have been talking about how a Blessing which specifically affects a model is supposed to affect a unit to activate the Blessing of Tzeentch.

But the question isn't whether all rules transfer to the unit. Everyone agrees they don't. I phrased that badly in my last comment. The question is whether a change in one model has affected the unit. And if you were to give one model Relentless I would argue the unit has been affected because the unit is not exactly the same as it was before that happened.

Technically, if all we have is logic and semantics as our guide then Charistoph and Fhionnuisce are both right (or equally wrong) and neither can disprove the other.

A change to a model does logically and semantically affect the unit that model is in.


Is there anything beyond logic and semantics that can weigh in here?

 Charistoph wrote:
Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level.

Incidentally, while this is a true statement about factions, it did nothing to explain why the same would not also be true of an affected by blessing status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


Technically, if all we have is logic and semantics as our guide then Charistoph and Fhionnuisce are both right (or equally wrong) and neither can disprove the other.

A change to a model does logically and semantically affect the unit that model is in.


Is there anything beyond logic and semantics that can weigh in here?

I really don't think so.

Ok and now for the complete mindfuck: My sorcerer casts a Telekinetic Dome. He and X amount of models within 12" get blessed/affected/whatever. Let's just say these models only get the Blessing of Tzeentch. Then in the shooting phase, a unit of bikers turbo boosts and moves within 12" of the Sorcerer. Suddenly, these bikers benefit from the Telekinetic dome, even though they were not within 12" when the spell was cast. Do these bikers instantly get the Blessing of Tzeentch, because they are now obviously affected by the blessing?

Jesus that's so hard. Until an official faq comes, I'm going to switch the word "unit" with the word "model" in the Blessing of Tzeentch rule. This would clarify most of the questions I set above.

Fhionnuisce wrote:But the question isn't whether all rules transfer to the unit. Everyone agrees they don't. I phrased that badly in my last comment. The question is whether a change in one model has affected the unit. And if you were to give one model Relentless I would argue the unit has been affected because the unit is not exactly the same as it was before that happened.

And I didn't state anything about the rules transferring, did I? All I am talking about is the affect.

When something states it affects a model, that's all it directly affects, not the unit, and there is nothing to indicate that indirect affects are taken in to consideration.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level.

Incidentally, while this is a true statement about factions, it did nothing to explain why the same would not also be true of an affected by blessing status.

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

 Charistoph wrote:

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

"Indirectly affect" . . . "level of entity recognition"? page and paragraph, please.

Not that I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to argue, but I am curious, do you have any basis in the actual rules for what you are claiming?

Any model on the battlefield is part of a unit. And a unit is nothing more than a collective of models. Units have no physical reality on their own apart from the models that comprise them.

Something that affects part of A affects A. Is it possible to burn someone's face but not burn them? Does death affect a family only when all of the family perishes or any time a member of the family dies?


Just wondering if you have anything at all to back your argument up except logic and semantics (ie something in the actual rules). If you don't then it seems you are at an impasse, since logic and semantics is on the other side as well.

Maybe we could consider if one interpretation leads to absurd results.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

"Indirectly affect" . . . "level of entity recognition"? page and paragraph, please.

Not that I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to argue, but I am curious, do you have any basis in the actual rules for what you are claiming?

Any model on the battlefield is part of a unit. And a unit is nothing more than a collective of models. Units have no physical reality on their own apart from the models that comprise them.

Something that affects part of A affects A. Is it possible to burn someone's face but not burn them? Does death affect a family only when all of the family perishes or any time a member of the family dies?


Just wondering if you have anything at all to back your argument up except logic and semantics (ie something in the actual rules). If you don't then it seems you are at an impasse, since logic and semantics is on the other side as well.

Maybe we could consider if one interpretation leads to absurd results.

It's a rather big leap to deduce that a whole unit gets a Blessing of Tzeentch on a Boon cast on the sorcerer though. Ruleswise the unit is not even targeted, much less affected or involved in any way, and lorewise a Boon is Tzeentch blessing his champion after submitting it to a trial of spirit (a str 4 hit). If I were a random chaos marine, I would not dare to delve into my sorcerer's domain lest my arrogance gets noted and I'm rewarded with that-which-must-not-be-named. On the other hand, a redundant blessing cast on a unit is still a blessing nonetheless, and powers like Force or Tlekinetic Dome should grant Blessing of Tzeentch to the whole unit regardless if the unit can make use of the effect of the power or not.

At any rate, you two are not reaching a verdict any time in this century. I suggest we use the rule of cool (agree with opponent beforehand) or use the most important rule if you don't seem to agree.

Hard to get an consensus when one is being ignored because of his previous attempts to deliberately misrepresent both what I have said and what the rulebook says.

Let's look at a slightly different angle. The only definition I have seen for unit comes from BRB pg 9, which says basically a unit is a group of models banded together. To the best of my knowledge that is the only place 40k attempts to define a unit, certainly thus far no one has referenced any other. If that is in fact the only definition, then the unit has no identity separate of the included models. That would mean the unit (though not necessarily all member models) would have any and all qualities of the inluded models. So one psyker modell makes it a psyker unit, one Eldar model makes it an Eldar unit, one daemon model makes it a daemon unit, and one affected by blessing model makes it an affected by blessing unit.

If you have rules text that defines a unit separate from its member models please provide it. If you have rules text that defines affected in a way that shows it must be the entire unit please provide that. If you can provide neither I don't see how you can claim a different interpretation to be RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:
Hard to get an consensus when one is being ignored because of his previous attempts to deliberately misrepresent both what I have said and what the rulebook says.

Correct me if I am wrong but as I recall you have me on ignore because you got suspended several times from DakkaDakka for making baseless personal attacks against me in this forum (calling me a liar, etc.) since you have trouble keeping the discourse polite when you are losing the argument. Again, if my recall is incorrect here, feel free to show how I am incorrect.

I don't mind you putting me on ignore but let's be clear about why you have me on ignore, shall we? Calling me "the ignored one" for baseless reasons is just another instance of impolite discourse on your part. I politely request that you change your ways.


With regards to the matter at hand, Charistph, you are trying to treat "affect" as "wholly affect" when the dictionary definition of "affect" would include both "wholly" and "partially" senses of the word. The BRB does not provide us with an alternative definition of affect so your argument is on very thin ice here.

I am not sure which side I am on in this particular argument. I am pointing out that neither side has yet to disprove the other. I think you should look for a particular instance where treating affect as partially affect causes serious problems in the rules which then means we can discard the other side by virtue of reductio ad absurdum.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Let's look at a slightly different angle. The only definition I have seen for unit comes from BRB pg 9, which says basically a unit is a group of models banded together. To the best of my knowledge that is the only place 40k attempts to define a unit, certainly thus far no one has referenced any other. If that is in fact the only definition, then the unit has no identity separate of the included models. That would mean the unit (though not necessarily all member models) would have any and all qualities of the inluded models. So one psyker modell makes it a psyker unit, one Eldar model makes it an Eldar unit, one daemon model makes it a daemon unit, and one affected by blessing model makes it an affected by blessing unit.

If you have rules text that defines a unit separate from its member models please provide it. If you have rules text that defines affected in a way that shows it must be the entire unit please provide that. If you can provide neither I don't see how you can claim a different interpretation to be RAW.

If you can identify the rules text that states that when one model is affected, the entire group of models is affected, please provide it.

It's a simple case of recognizing who it is addressing and not trying to make indirect or abstract connections which are not properly defined.

If it says it affects a model, it is not stating it affects a group of models, just the model identified (i.e. targeted, with the special rule, etc). If it states it affects a unit, it is affecting a group of models. It really is that simple, so there is no reason to try an extend its meaning beyond what it is needed.

What defunition of affected are you using that would enable 99% of the unit to be changed but you still consider the unit unaffected?

A model is affected, a unit is nothing more than a group of models, the unit must be affected. It has no rules defined identity separate from that. You keep trying to treat the unit as a completely separate entity from the models it includes but have provided absolutely no rules support that says you can.

 Charistoph wrote:

If you can identify the rules text that states that when one model is affected, the entire group of models is affected, please provide it.

It's a simple case of recognizing who it is addressing and not trying to make indirect or abstract connections which are not properly defined.

If it says it affects a model, it is not stating it affects a group of models, just the model identified (i.e. targeted, with the special rule, etc). If it states it affects a unit, it is affecting a group of models. It really is that simple, so there is no reason to try an extend its meaning beyond what it is needed.

Where are you finding in the rules that "affect" strictly means "wholly affect" as you would have it? If the rules intend "affect" to mean "wholly affect" they would have specified as such, since "wholly affect" is a specific use of "affect". If a unit is partially affected it is affected.

You can't win this argument by appealing only to semantics and logic. Semantics and logic are actually against you here.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
What defunition of affected are you using that would enable 99% of the unit to be changed but you still consider the unit unaffected?

A model is affected, a unit is nothing more than a group of models, the unit must be affected. It has no rules defined identity separate from that. You keep trying to treat the unit as a completely separate entity from the models it includes but have provided absolutely no rules support that says you can.

The definition of model versus the definition of unit.

I stated my case using the definitions provided by the game. A unit is a group of models. By then the association is that if something is affecting a unit, it is affecting a group of models. Is affecting one model affecting a group of models?

Recognize the entities as they are defined and don't attribute more than what it states. No reason to try and make it more abstract than what it actually states.

When you affect one model in a group you are partially affecting the group.

The BRB uses "affect" and does not restrict "affect" to "wholly affect".

As already stated English semantics is not on your side.

Have you found something in the BRB to support your argument?

Can you find an absurd result that requires players to interpret "affect" as "wholly affect"?

Neither you nor anyone else have provided game rules for what counts as affected. Nothing has been shared that shows any correlation between what is targeted (model or unit) and limiting the affected status to only that.

Barring a game definition you can look at the unit before and after. If it's not identical then it must have been affected. The fact that only a single model was targeted or in range doesn't change the fact that the unit has changed in some way. The group of models is not identical to the original group of models. To do otherwise applies an exceptionally strict and limiting definition. Strict interpretation is great, even encouraged if it comes from rules text but I'd much less defensible if you must go outside the rules for a definition.

If you can cite game rules that define affected then do so. If you can cite game rules that say the entire unit must be targeted or included to count as an affected unit then do so. Since you have done neither I must assume you have not been able to find said rules which means at best you can call this ambiguous.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Neither you nor anyone else have provided game rules for what counts as affected. Nothing has been shared that shows any correlation between what is targeted (model or unit) and limiting the affected status to only that.

Barring a game definition you can look at the unit before and after. If it's not identical then it must have been affected. The fact that only a single model was targeted or in range doesn't change the fact that the unit has changed in some way. The group of models is not identical to the original group of models. To do otherwise applies an exceptionally strict and limiting definition. Strict interpretation is great, even encouraged if it comes from rules text but I'd much less defensible if you must go outside the rules for a definition.

If you can cite game rules that define affected then do so. If you can cite game rules that say the entire unit must be targeted or included to count as an affected unit then do so. Since you have done neither I must assume you have not been able to find said rules which means at best you can call this ambiguous.

Affected versus indirectly affected, that is what you are trying to argue here that they are the same. There is also the distinction between model versus unit. Was the whole group of models actually affected? If yes, how do you know? If no, how do you know?

What do the rules address, model or unit? It really is that simple.

I'm this case they are functionally the same. Blessing of Tzeentch cares only that the unit was affected and directly affected or indirectly affected are both affected. Where did the game make a distinction?

Yay! Keyboards sacrificed over moar GW bad written rules. Just as planned...

More funny question: What is a unit? Is Magnus a unit? Do you need 1+ models to have a unit? Is Magnus or a DP forever unable to benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch? If I have a unit of 2 obliterators I can give them Blessing of Tzeentch. What happens if one of them dies? Does the unit stop being a unit any more?

Jesus GW, you make it so stupidly difficult to even make sense of the rules. Messing us up on what is RAI-wise the most straightforward rule to understand: Buff your dudes and they get an extra candy on top of that.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Yay! Keyboards sacrificed over moar GW bad written rules. Just as planned...

More funny question: What is a unit? Is Magnus a unit? Do you need 1+ models to have a unit? Is Magnus or a DP forever unable to benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch? If I have a unit of 2 obliterators I can give them Blessing of Tzeentch. What happens if one of them dies? Does the unit stop being a unit any more?

Jesus GW, you make it so stupidly difficult to even make sense of the rules. Messing us up on what is RAI-wise the most straightforward rule to understand: Buff your dudes and they get an extra candy on top of that.

BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

Fhionnuisce wrote:I'm this case they are functionally the same. Blessing of Tzeentch cares only that the unit was affected and directly affected or indirectly affected are both affected. Where did the game make a distinction?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

If you are told to affect one thing, are you told to affect a multitude at the same time?

Fhionnuisce wrote:BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

I can point out several ICs which are not single model units, but that's getting nit picky.

And what about my 2 man obliterator unit suffering a casualty? Does it cease being a unit if 1 guy dies?

From Dictionary.com :

unit
[yoo-nit]

noun
1.
a single thing or person.
2.
any group of things or persons regarded as an entity:
They formed a cohesive unit.
3.
one of the individuals or groups that together constitute a whole; one of the parts or elements into which a whole may be divided or analyzed.
4.
one of a number of things, organizations, etc., identical or equivalent in function or form:
a rental unit; a unit of rolling stock.
5.
any magnitude regarded as an independent whole; a single, indivisible entity.
6.
Also called dimension. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, or time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated.
7.
the least positive integer; one.

Well, that's not helping.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:I'm this case they are functionally the same. Blessing of Tzeentch cares only that the unit was affected and directly affected or indirectly affected are both affected. Where did the game make a distinction?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

You are the one who brought up the directly and indirectly affected idea. My point is that doesn't matter. Whether it affects directly or indirectly it is still affected and Blessing of Tzeentch only cares that the unit be affected by a blessing. Your extra qualified are irrelevant.

I can't help noticing in your efforts to attack me for using the terminology you introduced you still have not provided any rules support. Since it is becoming abundantly clear you have no intention of doing so I am done with this until there are actual rules brought up for discussion.

topaxygouroun i wrote:And what about my 2 man obliterator unit suffering a casualty? Does it cease being a unit if 1 guy dies?

From Dictionary.com :

The rulebook provides the definition of unit, so we can dispense with the dictionary version. YMDC Tenet #6.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You are the one who brought up the directly and indirectly affected idea. My point is that doesn't matter. Whether it affects directly or indirectly it is still affected and Blessing of Tzeentch only cares that the unit be affected by a blessing. Your extra qualified are irrelevant.

I can't help noticing in your efforts to attack me for using the terminology you introduced you still have not provided any rules support. Since it is becoming abundantly clear you have no intention of doing so I am done with this until there are actual rules brought up for discussion.

Actually, no, I am not the one who brought up the idea. I identified it for what it was and provided the label, that's not the same thing. The concept that if you affect the model, you affect the unit, is presenting the concept of the indirect effect.

Relentless, which states it only applies to a model, indirectly affects the unit because it allows certain actions by that model that would otherwise affect the unit, to be ignored.

Conversely, Stubborn states it affects a unit, so it affects the whole group, without any need of adding "indirectly" to the statement.

You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

You have not provided any rules that indirectly affected matters, so should we ignore what you state? The rules simply state "affect", correct? In common usage, that often does not always include the indirect, and only does for the most picky.

Admittedly, it is dependent on the system and one's interpretations of how far the simple term "affect" goes. It is only when we are told to think so critically that we bring the concept of indirectly affect in to play.

But we must also recognize as to whom we are told to affect with the rules, either model or unit. Do not conflate the terms to being one and the same, for the game does not recognize them as such. When we are told we are to affect one model with a group, we are not being told that all in the group are being affected. It is to this I keep asking you to reference to support your assertion.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

You have not provided any rules that indirectly affected matters, so should we ignore what you state? The rules simply state "affect", correct? In common usage, that often does not always include the indirect, and only does for the most picky.

Admittedly, it is dependent on the system and one's interpretations of how far the simple term "affect" goes. It is only when we are told to think so critically that we bring the concept of indirectly affect in to play.

But we must also recognize as to whom we are told to affect with the rules, either model or unit. Do not conflate the terms to being one and the same, for the game does not recognize them as such. When we are told we are to affect one model with a group, we are not being told that all in the group are being affected. It is to this I keep asking you to reference to support your assertion.

Again, you were the one that brought in the indirect affect. I have been operating on the most basic definition of affect - to act on; produce an effect or change in. If an action resulted in a change in the unit then the unit was affected. I'm unclear on how you consider the most basic dictionary definition to be not common usage. Since you are convinced the dictionary definition of affect is not appropriate in the context of the game you need to show where the rules contradict or redefine the term. A rulebook definition would certainly override a dictionary definition within the framework of the game, but you haven't provided one. If the rules don't define it and we can't assume the standard English language meaning then we have no basis for even communication, much less agreeing on game rules.

The semantic distinction at issue here is not between 'indirect' and 'direct' uses of the term affect. Charistoph is making up those terms and forming a false dichotomy.

The actual semantic distinction at issue here is between 'wholly affect' and just 'affect'.

The BRB does not specify 'wholly affect' so it can only mean just 'affect'.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Again, you were the one that brought in the indirect affect. I have been operating on the most basic definition of affect - to act on; produce an effect or change in. If an action resulted in a change in the unit then the unit was affected. I'm unclear on how you consider the most basic dictionary definition to be not common usage. Since you are convinced the dictionary definition of affect is not appropriate in the context of the game you need to show where the rules contradict or redefine the term. A rulebook definition would certainly override a dictionary definition within the framework of the game, but you haven't provided one. If the rules don't define it and we can't assume the standard English language meaning then we have no basis for even communication, much less agreeing on game rules.

Do not misrepresent what I have said, for the second time, I did not bring it up. I merely pointed out that is what you and others are trying to include "indirectly affect" with "affect". Properly defining a situation is not bringing it up. The person who is making an assertion of something is the one who is bringing it up.

I do believe that I brought up the definition of "affect" earlier, so don't even think I am trying to ignore it. Keep in mind that the English language has many different permutations, largely because of the sources that it borrows from and the vernacular that grows from social modifications. The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage. We are not instructed to consider it in this game's context, as far as I know, nor have you presented anything which tells me to.

So, the question is, when something is said that it affects a model, is it stating it is affecting a unit? These are different levels of entities, and you need to demonstrate what is telling you to do so.

Can you demonstrate that the use of "affect" is to be used in an indirect as well as a manner via any precedent in the rulebook?

So far you have beaten around the bush and accused me of attacking you, while doing nothing else but saying the equivalent of "it doesn't say I can't do that".

Charistoph,

"direct" versus "indirect" is a false dichotomy that you have made up in order to strawman your opponent. The BRB makes no distinction between "direct" or "indirect" with regards to affect.


The actual semantic distinction at issue here is between "wholly affect" and just "affect".

The BRB does make a distinction between "wholly" with regards to "within" and movement.



This underscores what we already know. Unless the BRB specifically says "wholly affect" the BRB means just "affect".


Semantics and English usage are not on your side here. You need to support your argument with rules quotes or some other logical argumentation (e.g. reductio ad absurdum).

 Charistoph wrote:
So far you have beaten around the bush and accused me of attacking you, while doing nothing else but saying the equivalent of "it doesn't say I can't do that".

Let's consider this statement. I have made no statements anything like the rules don't say you can't. I have backed any claims with rules where I could find them and logic in the, admittedly many in this case, places the rules fell short. I've stated from the very beginning I don't think the rules have been sufficiently defined to reach a firm RAW decision on this particular rule.

You on the other hand have stated my evaluation is completely wrong on the basis of terms and levels of distinction that do not actually appear in the rules, but have failed to provide any rules support at all that shows why we can use your interpretation. As many on this board (yourself included I believe) are fond of saying, in a permissive rule set, if the rules do not give you explicit permission to do it then you can't do it.

Don't add irrelevant terms and qualifiers to show me why my interpretation is wrong, show me the rules that make your interpretation right.

 Charistoph wrote:
The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage.

If you can't communicate your point clearly, maybe it's because you're a little mixed up.

You don't need a critical thinking exercise, you just need a dictionary.

Wow stepped away from this after the first page, didn't think my question would start this size of a discussion haha.
The way I see it is that a unit consists of models that are grouped together, weather that's a single model acting on its own, a squad bought and upgraded together or a squad with an independent character attached. Force says it targets the entire unit and is a blessing, weather or not the models in question have a force weapon it doesn't matter where as something like fiery form is a blessing that targets the psycher in which case the unit has not been targeted, just the individual. This is how I interpret it and how I believe it was intended.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Let's consider this statement. I have made no statements anything like the rules don't say you can't. I have backed any claims with rules where I could find them and logic in the, admittedly many in this case, places the rules fell short. I've stated from the very beginning I don't think the rules have been sufficiently defined to reach a firm RAW decision on this particular rule.

You have not backed up your claims with any rule that states we are to consider "indirectly affected" to mean the common usage of "affected". You have not backed up your claims that we are permitted to consider a unit affected when a model is affected. This is what I mean by you saying that you can't apply this definition.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You on the other hand have stated my evaluation is completely wrong on the basis of terms and levels of distinction that do not actually appear in the rules, but have failed to provide any rules support at all that shows why we can use your interpretation. As many on this board (yourself included I believe) are fond of saying, in a permissive rule set, if the rules do not give you explicit permission to do it then you can't do it.

Not entirely. Units and models are separate levels of identification. You have done nothing to discount this. Because of this, what is stated as affecting one, does not necessarily state it affects another.

Part of the problem is that this concept that I am trying to help you see is that it is part of how the ruleset is presented, which means it is hard to put it down in one point that when a rule states it is affecting a model, it doesn't mean it is affecting a unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Don't add irrelevant terms and qualifiers to show me why my interpretation is wrong, show me the rules that make your interpretation right.

Why have you not shown your interpretation is right? Why have you not demonstrated from the rulebook that when a something is affecting a model, it is also affecting a unit?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage.

If you can't communicate your point clearly, maybe it's because you're a little mixed up.

You don't need a critical thinking exercise, you just need a dictionary.

And yet the dictionary doesn't consider the classification of the "indirect affect" as part of the base definition. The only places that it is considered is in critical thinking exercises or as directed in instructions. And one only usually finds that out after one has given an "incomplete" answer.

To act upon a model, doesn't necessarily mean you are acting upon a unit. The differences between rules like Relentless and Stubborn are quite clear on this. Move Through Cover has two different effects, one affects the unit, and one affects the model. Everything else beyond that, the game does not make note of as affecting.

So you are willing to tell me I am wrong without providing rules that show it, then when asked to provide rules to support your interpretation you just flat refuse to do it. This strongly indicates that either you view your position as indefensible or your goal in the discussion has nothing to do with reaching any understanding about how the rule works.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So you are willing to tell me I am wrong without providing rules that show it, then when asked to provide rules to support your interpretation you just flat refuse to do it. This strongly indicates that either you view your position as indefensible or your goal in the discussion has nothing to do with reaching any understanding about how the rule works.

In regards to the application of "affect", my position is just as tenuous as yours, so don't get so high and mighty or offended by it.

However, there is a clear definition of model and a clear definition of unit. While a unit may be made up of one model, that is more the exception than the rule. There are clear foundations as to when something is being acted upon and to which it is identified, and these are set in the front of the book under General Principles.

The clearest indication of this is the interactions between Independent Characters and units. There is more than enough posted on this forum about it, and there is enough in there to indicate the relationship between model and unit. Also read up on the introduction to Special Rules for some further insights.

To put it in short, by stating something that affects a model is affecting a unit, is extending the reach of an affect farther than it has permission to do. It has little to do with "affect" itself and more to do with the distinct delineations provided between model and unit in rule interaction. Which is why I kept restating that interaction. You focused too much one word to bother looking at this relationship.

See I can accept and respect that acknowledgement about the affect definition. You were presenting like it was a well established and accepted interaction but then not providing support.

As to the unit/model distinction, I have not missed or ignored that. I agree targeting a model is not the same as targeting a unit. I agree acting on a model is not the same as acting on a unit. Or vice versa in either case. Those are better established concepts in the rules. I have focused on affect precisely because it is the unknown element. And since affect is a more general concept than act on, I don't know that you can say something must be acted on to be affected. That's not how it works in general usage and I have not seen rules that say we should interpret it differently than the general usage.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And since affect is a more general concept than act on, I don't know that you can say something must be acted on to be affected. That's not how it works in general usage and I have not seen rules that say we should interpret it differently than the general usage.

And this is where YMDC Tenet #6 comes in to play.

Affect's definition can be a little different, depending on who you ask. Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, and Merriam Webster all have different definitions to it.

So, since we are dealing with many different concepts, can we say that something is affecting a whole group of models when it only states it is affecting one model?

We fundamentally disagree on what it means to be affected. You require it be specifically designated as being agreed upon while I am willing to consider the more general definition that it have been in some way changed. The rules don't seem to address it so barring rules text that hasn't come up in the discussion so far or an FAQ release we will not reach a consensus and even if we did agree we still couldn't definitively say it is RAW.

Out of curiosity, do those of you who say the entire unit has to be affected by the blessing to get the +1 invul also not reveal mysterious objectives unless your entire unit gets within 3 inches? (page 135, "any unit that moves within 3" of an objective, or is within 3" of an objective at the start of the first turn, must identify the nature of it")

or for some of the many tactical objectives like hold the line (page 139 "score 1 victory point if at least 3 of your scoring units and none of your opponent's scoring units are within 12" of your own table edge at the end of your turn")

Even rules like Blind (page 159) say "any unit hit by one or models with this special rule must take an initiative test" but I've never avoided taking the test because every model in the unit wasn't hit by the blinding weapon.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:I'm this case they are functionally the same. Blessing of Tzeentch cares only that the unit was affected and directly affected or indirectly affected are both affected. Where did the game make a distinction?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

If you are told to affect one thing, are you told to affect a multitude at the same time?

Fhionnuisce wrote:BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

I can point out several ICs which are not single model units, but that's getting nit picky.

That's the whole point, no distinction is made. It says "affected", "inderectly affected" and "directly affected" (if such a thing even existd) both fall under "affected". As a result the unit as a whole is affected and receives the blessing.

Blessing of tzeentch sets the parameter "IF unit is affected by blessing THEN +1 to invul saves".
Force is a blessing that sets the parameter "IF cast is succesful THEN entire unit is affected as per power description" because the entry says it is a blessing that targets the entire unit. The effect of force sets the parameter "IF number of force weapons >0 THEN weapon gains instant death ELSE no instant death i gained". The power still runs, whether it does something or not.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
We fundamentally disagree on what it means to be affected. You require it be specifically designated as being agreed upon while I am willing to consider the more general definition that it have been in some way changed. The rules don't seem to address it so barring rules text that hasn't come up in the discussion so far or an FAQ release we will not reach a consensus and even if we did agree we still couldn't definitively say it is RAW.

Simple question. If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

lessthanjeff wrote:Out of curiosity, do those of you who say the entire unit has to be affected by the blessing to get the +1 invul also not reveal mysterious objectives unless your entire unit gets within 3 inches? (page 135, "any unit that moves within 3" of an objective, or is within 3" of an objective at the start of the first turn, must identify the nature of it")

or for some of the many tactical objectives like hold the line (page 139 "score 1 victory point if at least 3 of your scoring units and none of your opponent's scoring units are within 12" of your own table edge at the end of your turn")

Even rules like Blind (page 159) say "any unit hit by one or models with this special rule must take an initiative test" but I've never avoided taking the test because every model in the unit wasn't hit by the blinding weapon.

Because the game interacts with models and units differently. When a rule states "a model does X" or "When a model is hit, X happens", it is only working upon that model and not the whole group. When a rule states "a unit does X" or "When a unit is hit, X happens" it is talking about the whole group.

To consider it another way, let's look at Concussive. Does the whole group of models get affected when a unit is hit by it?

Blind is rather a poor example since Units are Hit, not models. Models get Wounds Allocated to them depending on the success against the Unit.

Objective Control specifically mentions "at least one model from one of your scoring units", so a less effective example.

DaPino wrote:That's the whole point, no distinction is made. It says "affected", "inderectly affected" and "directly affected" (if such a thing even existd) both fall under "affected". As a result the unit as a whole is affected and receives the blessing.

Blessing of tzeentch sets the parameter "IF unit is affected by blessing THEN +1 to invul saves".
Force is a blessing that sets the parameter "IF cast is succesful THEN entire unit is affected as per power description" because the entry says it is a blessing that targets the entire unit. The effect of force sets the parameter "IF number of force weapons >0 THEN weapon gains instant death ELSE no instant death i gained". The power still runs, whether it does something or not.

That is why I keep referencing back to Relentless. Relentless only affects a model. But by this consideration, it is "affecting" the unit, so all of the models are affected?

Maybe I should be referring to Concussive? If one model is affected by it, is the whole group of models it is with reduced to Initiative 1 or just the model?

 Charistoph wrote:
If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

Charistoph, you have a major flaw in your argument in that you are deliberately ignoring the nature of that "something". And have been for some time. Your Relentless example is one example which you've cherry-picked, and doesn't even pass the test when you reverse the IC + attached unit.

If you want to prove a global rule, you cannot simply ignore any scenario which doesn't suit your interpretation. Here's another VERY simple example. Forget Concussive, Blind, and the rest. If you remove a model, does a group get smaller? Most people don't need this explicitly stated to them.

If that "something" is what determines the affect, you need to consider every example on a case-by-case basis. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

Charistoph, you have a major flaw in your argument in that you are deliberately ignoring the nature of that "something". And have been for some time. Your Relentless example is one example which you've cherry-picked, and doesn't even pass the test when you reverse the IC + attached unit.

If you want to prove a global rule, you cannot simply ignore any scenario which doesn't suit your interpretation. Here's another VERY simple example. Forget Concussive, Blind, and the rest. If you remove a model, does a group get smaller? Most people don't need this explicitly stated to them.

If that "something" is what determines the affect, you need to consider every example on a case-by-case basis. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

It is not a flaw in my argument, it is how I understand the processes involved and demonstrates the flaws in your argument.

We are looking at a special rule that is looking for another rule to do something to a certain type of entity, correct?

What is a unit, in your consideration?

Is a model a unit as far as the game is concerned?

Does Concussive affect a model or a unit?

Would a rule that states it changes a model also be changing the whole group of models, or just that one?

Why then would some thing looking for a change to the whole group be concerned about a change to just a portion and not the whole?

The rules don't require the "whole group" be changed. That is your stipulation that you have not been able to support. The rules only look to see that the unit has been affected. Barring a game rule definition, what affects a part can be considered to affect the whole.

You are equating affect with act on and they are not the same. Nothing states that because only a model is acted upon the unit is not affected. Nothing states every model must be acted on for the unit to be affected.

Unless you can define what affected means in a game sense you cannot support these claims. You can argue HIWPI, you can argue your interpretation of RAI, but there simply is not enough to make a case for RAW.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
The rules don't require the "whole group" be changed. That is your stipulation that you have not been able to support. The rules only look to see that the unit has been affected. Barring a game rule definition, what affects a part can be considered to affect the whole.

What is a unit? Is it not a whole group of models?

What informs you to consider something acting on a part of the unit to be acting on a whole?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are equating affect with act on and they are not the same. Nothing states that because only a model is acted upon the unit is not affected. Nothing states every model must be acted on for the unit to be affected.

This has already demonstrated that this definition is dependent upon which dictionary you use. Regardless of that, in order for something to be changed or made different, something has to act upon it.

Now, reverse your statement, nothing states that only one model needs to be acted on for the whole unit to be affected.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Unless you can define what affected means in a game sense you cannot support these claims. You can argue HIWPI, you can argue your interpretation of RAI, but there simply is not enough to make a case for RAW.

I have provided several definitions, but also demonstrated that it is pointless to the discussion because those definitions are rather mutable. More importantly, I recognize the definition of the entities involved which you seem to be ignoring. It is that which needs to be recognized in order to be properly addressed by you. These entities and their level of interactions are defined and demonstrated throughout the rulebook.

There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join. While "affect" may not be properly defined, this is. If you ignore these interaction definitions, you are extending concepts beyond that which they have been explicitly written.

Consider:
Does a unit Run or a model? Why? What tells you this?

Does a unit fire Weapons or does a model? Why? What tells you this?

Is a model affected by Concussive or is a unit? Why? What tells you this?

 Charistoph wrote:
There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join.

Then cite it.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join.

Then cite it.

I have, you ignored it.

Yoyoyo wrote:
If you remove a model, does a group get smaller?

I noticed you didn't answer this question, Charistoph.

I'd like to have your opinion of this in particular, before you go off on any more overly complicated tangents.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
If you remove a model, does a group get smaller?

I noticed you didn't answer this question, Charistoph.

I'd like to have your opinion of this in particular, before you go off on any more overly complicated tangents.

Why address what is tantamount to a strawman argument?

Of course it gets smaller, and those rules which address it specifically state it as such in a process. Do you want to define any particular scenario in which a model is removed so I can demonstrate it? Your question is rather general, and you seem to want me to avoid being "complicated" by demonstrating most of them.

And sad to say, because of the lack of proper rule cohesiveness in 40K rules, questions like this almost have to be addressed in complicated manners, and they are not tangents.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join.

Then cite it.

I have, you ignored it.

I just went through every post you have made in this thread and you have ciyed nothing on this. You make a lot of statements of this is how the rules work but no quotes or page numbers. A lot of argument about direct affect and indirect affect but again no page numbers or quotes.

The closest you have come is using different rules as examples. The problem with that is 1) they only state what is acted upon not what is affected and 2) they did not lead most other people in this thread to the same conclusions you reached about then.

This is not a strawman. I just asked you a question with a very evident conclusion, that you apparently don't like.

If your opinion about models, groups, and "affected" is correct, it needs to hold true for all examples.

It clearly doesn't. Do you want to try answering this question again, this time without attacking the premise?

This is probably the best way to convince me.

Does removing an individual model "affect" the group?

I think Blessing of Tzeentch should kick in whenever one or more models in a unit are targeted by or have some benefit conferred on them specifically by a Blessing type power.

If the state of one model in a unit changes, then the state of the entire unit has changed, as the unit is a collection of individual models. For example, if one model is removed a casualty, the number of models in the unit has changed.

Furthermore, the new discipline of Tzeentch contains no unit-wide blessings. It seems like an oversight to add a Tzeentch-specific rule and then fail to include any means of activating it in the Tzeentch-discipline. Unit-wide blessings are a fairly rare thing to begin with.

What's the difference between 'within' and 'wholly within' in the BRB?

Considering the precedence established by 'within' and 'wholly within', how should we interpret 'affect' versus 'wholly affect'?

Fhionnuisce wrote:I just went through every post you have made in this thread and you have ciyed nothing on this. You make a lot of statements of this is how the rules work but no quotes or page numbers. A lot of argument about direct affect and indirect affect but again no page numbers or quotes.

The closest you have come is using different rules as examples. The problem with that is 1) they only state what is acted upon not what is affected and 2) they did not lead most other people in this thread to the same conclusions you reached about then.

As I said, you have ignored it, and apparently continue ignoring it.

Look up the definition of a unit, it is in General Principles.

Look up at all the rules interactions, to whom do they state they affect and when?

Look up the introduction to Special Rules and whom they state it applies to.

Look up Independent Character and the interactions between unit and the model with this special rule.

Look up all the Special Rules and identify who it actually states it affects, unit or model. Can we actually consider Concussive or Relentless to be affecting the definition of unit as provided in General Principles and the interactions as defined in Independent Characters?

I asked these questions to point you in the direction of the answers and you have ignored them. I cannot provide you page numbers as I do not have a physical copy available to reference anymore, and ebook reader page numbers will vary based on the reader and font size.

Yoyoyo wrote:This is not a strawman. I just asked you a question with a very evident conclusion, that you apparently don't like.

If your opinion about models, groups, and "affected" is correct, it needs to hold true for all examples.

It clearly doesn't. Do you want to try answering this question again, this time without attacking the premise?

This is probably the best way to convince me.

Does removing an individual model "affect" the group?

Scared for me to actually address a specific situation? Please provide one where a model is removed and I will go through the process and highlight the scenario as to when it tells you when something is affected. There are too many to count quickly and they are all through the entire rulebook, so I want you to provide the actual scenario of model loss so that way it cannot be dismissed.

Let's look at a power like Psychic Scourge, then.

The wording is "targets an enemy psyker within 24".

This power can remove a wound from that psyker, removing them from the unit.

If that psyker model is removed -- do you consider the unit affected, despite the fact that Psychic Scourge specifically targets a model?

Telling someone to read the rules is not the same as citing a rule. I read through those sections you listed but see nothing that leads me to the conclusion that something that affects a model does not also affect the unit of which it is part. I am always open to the possibility that I have overlooked or misread something, but you need to be more specific if you expect me to see it.

You guys are still going on this... wow! Dedication at its finest!

topaxygouroun i wrote:
You guys are still going on this... wow! Dedication at its finest!

When one side is continually showing different precedents in the rulebook that support their standing and the other side is repeating the same non relevant examples it gets a bit stale. Dedicated to copy/paste and the ever-so-loved slight goalpost movement of "im just saying it's not very clear" which is obvious.

 Charistoph wrote:

Because the game interacts with models and units differently. When a rule states "a model does X" or "When a model is hit, X happens", it is only working upon that model and not the whole group. When a rule states "a unit does X" or "When a unit is hit, X happens" it is talking about the whole group.

To consider it another way, let's look at Concussive. Does the whole group of models get affected when a unit is hit by it?

Blind is rather a poor example since Units are Hit, not models. Models get Wounds Allocated to them depending on the success against the Unit.

Objective Control specifically mentions "at least one model from one of your scoring units", so a less effective example.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "the unit is affected by a blessing" and "the unit is hit with a blind weapon". In one case, you're saying a single model getting hit by a blind weapon means the unit has been affected by blind but in the other case you're saying a model being affected by a blessing doesn't mean the unit has been.

Concussive is a different case because it specifies model instead of unit so I don't believe it is as relevant as blind here.

I didn't say objective control either. I pointed out the rules for revealing a mysterious objective which are different. The rule doesn't say when you control the objective you reveal it, it says "any unit that moves within 3" of an objective" identifies its nature.

For another example, we could consider characters like Ulrik the Slayer that confer bubbles to units within 6". Do you stipulate that the entire unit has to be within the 6" to get the effect?

How I Would Play It: A unit must have all models be affected by a blessing. Some examples:

- Iron Arm/Empyric Shield/Fiery Form - Only affects a model and therefore doesn't trigger the blessing
- Shrouding - Technically only targets a model, but due to the emanation passing shrouded to any models within range and shrouded confers to the unit not only is the casters unit affected (and therefore triggers the blessing), but any other models in range also confer it to their unit, also triggering the blessing for them too.
- Foreboding/Hammerhand/Levitation - Technically only Targets a model though any unit that model is attached to is also affected, triggering the blessing.
- Telekine Dome/Cursed Earth - Technically only targets a model, but due to the emanation passing the buff to all models within 12", if all models in a unit are within 12" of the caster, then this will trigger the blessing for that unit, however, if only some models but not the entire unit recieve the effect due to some models being out of range, then the unit does not recieve the blessing.
- Force/Warp Fate/Endurance - Targets a unit with a blessing and as such, triggers the blessing

Personally, the only situation I see this really popping up is if an Aspiring Sorcerer has the misfortune of rolling up Boon of Mutation, and even then, why would you not just activate Force? Alternatively, some other Thousand Sons psyker might just have bad luck, run out of Blessings to cast and be left with something like Iron Arm/Warp Speed. In that sense, I wouldn't really mind playing this rule either way as it's probably not going to matter.

You have a bowl of almonds.

You then paint one of the almonds green.

Has the bowl of almonds been affected?


The answer is yes, and continues to be yes when you substitute the word unit for bowl and the word almonds for models.

Blessing of tzeentch is triggered whenever any blessing is cast on any model in a thousand sons unit, RAW.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:


Blessing of tzeentch is triggered whenever any blessing is cast on any model in a thousand sons unit, RAW.

Well, that's one interpretation

Another question. If a unit affected by a blessing gets nullify by culexus. Does that unit keep the +1 invuln from blessing of tz

col_impact wrote:
When you affect one model in a group you are partially affecting the group.

The BRB uses "affect" and does not restrict "affect" to "wholly affect".

As already stated English semantics is not on your side.

Have you found something in the BRB to support your argument?

Can you find an absurd result that requires players to interpret "affect" as "wholly affect"?

Under your logic if I cast boon of mutation on a aspiring sorcerer all units that are able to benefit from BoT do so. If you want a distinction between whole and partial then look at the word used in the rule and ask yourself why they didn't put "a model affected", its because they didn't want BOM or Siphon Magic to grant the benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, first the difference between affect and effect. Affect can cause a change, while effect is the change. From here on out I will use the word "impact" to replace the word "effect" where possible to keep things simple. Next up is the word unit, a unit in this case is a group of models, all the models, not some, not most, not "99%".

So let's read the rule with these things in mind. "If a unit" so all the models in a unit. "Is affected" so not necessarily impacted by the blessing, but could be, if they either possessed, or did not possess some other thing that prevents the affect from having an impact.

Now, force affects the entire unit, but does not impact the entire unit. So yes force gives the unit BOT buff. BoM does NOT affect the entire unit though it does have an impact on the entire unit, for example if I cast BoM and roll Dark Apotheosis, then my entire army has just been impacted by BoM which means all my models get a +1 to thier invul? No, they wouldn't.

Finally the AoE spells as long as the entire unit is benefiting from the blessing then yes they get BoT, but if even one model is not within the range of the blessing then no they don't. Why? Because the moment you are not talking about the unit as a whole then you are talking about the models in a unit.

Now if the rule said "If any model in a unit" then yes BoM and all spells similarly worded would activate BoT, but it does not say that. Conversely if it said "any unit effected" every time you casted any blessing a case could be made that your entire army was impacted and as such everyone now gets the benefit

EDIT: In the case brought up about shrouded affecting a unit that already had stealth, yes they would get the benefit again even though there is no impact there is still an affect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Another question. If a unit affected by a blessing gets nullify by culexus. Does that unit keep the +1 invuln from blessing of tz

Yes because the affect triggers the blessing so even though the impact is no longer thier the unit retains the benefit from BoT which "lasts until the next psychic phase" not "until the blessing ends"

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look at another case.

Some spells target the psyker, like Shrouding or TK Dome, which then confer an aura to models within 6" or 12" of the caster?

If 50% of the Rubrics are within range of the aura, and 50% of the Rubric receives no benefit, does the unit receive Blessing of Tzeentch?

There is a clear disconnect between a unit being targeted, and a unit being affected.

The models within 6" aren´t benefiting from the blessing they are benefitting from shrouded. this is any model even from different units. The only model blessed by the shrouding spell is the model it is cast on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

col_impact wrote:
When you affect one model in a group you are partially affecting the group.

The BRB uses "affect" and does not restrict "affect" to "wholly affect".

As already stated English semantics is not on your side.

Have you found something in the BRB to support your argument?

Can you find an absurd result that requires players to interpret "affect" as "wholly affect"?

Under your logic if I cast boon of mutation on a aspiring sorcerer all units that are able to benefit from BoT do so. If you want a distinction between whole and partial then look at the word used in the rule and ask yourself why they didn't put "a model affected", its because they didn't want BOM or Siphon Magic to grant the benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, first the difference between affect and effect. Affect can cause a change, while effect is the change. From here on out I will use the word "impact" to replace the word "effect" where possible to keep things simple. Next up is the word unit, a unit in this case is a group of models, all the models, not some, not most, not "99%".

So let's read the rule with these things in mind. "If a unit" so all the models in a unit. "Is affected" so not necessarily impacted by the blessing, but could be, if they either possessed, or did not possess some other thing that prevents the affect from having an impact.

Now, force affects the entire unit, but does not impact the entire unit. So yes force gives the unit BOT buff. BoM does NOT affect the entire unit though it does have an impact on the entire unit, for example if I cast BoM and roll Dark Apotheosis, then my entire army has just been impacted by BoM which means all my models get a +1 to thier invul? No, they wouldn't.

Finally the AoE spells as long as the entire unit is benefiting from the blessing then yes they get BoT, but if even one model is not within the range of the blessing then no they don't. Why? Because the moment you are not talking about the unit as a whole then you are talking about the models in a unit.

Now if the rule said "If any model in a unit" then yes BoM and all spells similarly worded would activate BoT, but it does not say that. Conversely if it said "any unit effected" every time you casted any blessing a case could be made that your entire army was impacted and as such everyone now gets the benefit

EDIT: In the case brought up about shrouded affecting a unit that already had stealth, yes they would get the benefit again even though there is no impact there is still an affect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Another question. If a unit affected by a blessing gets nullify by culexus. Does that unit keep the +1 invuln from blessing of tz

Yes because the affect triggers the blessing so even though the impact is no longer thier the unit retains the benefit from BoT which "lasts until the next psychic phase" not "until the blessing ends"

The AoE issue worries me by the defenition. My sorcerer cast shrouding on himself. Magnus is in range of this buff so now gets BoT???? He then runs away from the unit or charges out of range. He still has the benefit even though he has never been blessed only ever been impacted by a spell cast onto a single model in a completely separate unit.

Models, targeting, benefiting aren't part of the criteria.

Only "units" and "affected".

Sorry to dig up an old post, but I've been wondering about this myself, and have read through this entire thread. In my searching, I think I've found a section of the BRB that I believe actually helps resolve this debate, or at least provides a solid rules base for one side of the argument. BRB pg 108 talks about moving through difficult terrain.

The text reads as follows:
"Moving Within Difficult Terrain
If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain Test. No models in the unit can move more than the distance indicated by the test, even if they are not in difficult terrain."

I don't believe it's an end all be all argument, and we'll still likely need an FAQ for full resolution, but I think it's the closest scenario to the BoT rule so far discussed. It uses similar language and gives us a BRB definition of affect. It shows an explicit example of one model being affected conferring an affected status to the whole unit. For instance, say only one model is in the terrain, the whole unit is still affected by the difficult terrain rule. Therefore, anything that referred to the unit being affected by Difficult Terrain would be triggered, even if only one model is actually in the terrain. I'd say that this would be the closest BRB example in favor of the argument that Blessing of Tzeentch applies to the whole unit, even if not all models were specifically targeted or directly benefited from the blessing.