Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - an amazingly sweeping statement to make , you're not going to over generalise now, surely?

Again. Specify the exact words that specify the IC. For the umpteenth time of asking. Show how "contains at least..." Is more specific, when it comes to an IC , that "a unit". Please show how you differentiate between special rules granted to models within a it, granted on a units data sheet - the special rules that are specified by the IC rule you love so much - and special rules that a unit is granted, at the unit level.

Or don't. Again. Given you yet again failed to answer either happy or myself the ,sat few times this was asked

Talk about content less.

See my post above. It goes very much into detail and I have pointed to exact scoping mechanism and how "the unit with the special rule" misses the attached IC and "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is scoped to include attached ICs. So the scoping mechanism is something "specified in the rule itself" that incorporates attached models (which an IC joined to a unit is indisputably). The IC Special Rules rule does not require me to point to a portion of a special rule that specifically calls out the IC. I am only required to point to a specific portion of the rule that is in the rule itself and that is the portion responsible for actually incorporating the IC and therewith conferring the ability of the special rule. I have done this, and I detail it in my post above.

So see my post above. Or don't.

No one is expecting you to suddenly admit I am right. You are entrenched in your argument. Everyone is expecting you to keep obtusely tasking me with tasks I have already attended to and to keep throwing out jabs rather than actually provide anything in the way of a counter argument with weight.



At the end of the day, your inability to present a plausible counter argument that follows the rules means that my argument wins out.

col_impact wrote:You are mostly correct Charistophe. The clause is not meaningless as Nekooni's analysis would have it and the clause when present is doing something very specific. It is a scoping mechanism that when present allows the rule to actually see models attached to the unit.

Oh, I am completely correct, not just mostly. And get the name right, there is no 'e' at the end.

col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.

Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).

A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.

That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.

Much of what you wrote above, though, doesn't address the unit having the special rule belonging to the unit and not the IC. Keep in mind, though, that the IC joined to the unit will still be seen as part of the unit when a rule "sees" the unit as its target.

col_impact wrote:Consider these two versions of Stubborn.

1)

Spoiler:

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

This version will "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.

This version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.

Correct. The reason being that if the rule belongs to the unit, then there will be one model with a unit with the special rule. If the rule is on the IC, then even though the unit does not have it, it still contains one model with this special rule. AND the IC would still have to be part of the unit in order for the unit to have this qualification fulfilled.

col_impact wrote:2)

Spoiler:

Stubborn
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.

This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.

Incorrect. There is no difference between the units as established in either version. The difference being the target of the rule.

The target here is the unit with the special rule. An IC does not give his special rule to the unit, so by joining the unit, the unit does not get it.

However, the IC is as much part of the unit here as he is in the previous version, and in the end, the target is still the unit.

Therefore, this version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the unit having the Stubborn ability and the ability being conferred to the IC.

col_impact wrote:Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.

Right, but it does not separate the IC from the unit when rules target the unit as a whole. Other conditions must still be met, but that does not change the fact the IC is still part of the unit.

col_impact wrote:The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.

Either you are lying or misinterpreting everything I have stated. I have never added "ongoing" to "effect" in this discussion, save to reference that section. I have stated that the effect of the special rule does get passed on to an IC if the effect of the special rule is focused on the unit as a whole. This is substantiated that Ongoing Effects still affect the IC after it leaves. If it is still affecting the IC when it leaves, that means the effects have to be in play while joined. So, too, even rules that are not ongoing but apply in those short cases before an IC can leave that are directed at a whole unit would also include the IC in its effect.

That is what was stated.

col_impact wrote:Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.

Special Rules are abilities which affect models or units with conditions outside the normal rules. The effect is what happens when the rule's ability is applied. Why can you not understand this?

col_impact wrote:The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.

Right, like affecting the unit the IC is part of. Because that is all Stubborn directs its ability's effects towards.

col_impact wrote:I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.

That is because you ignore what other people write, as demonstrated by this diversion to "Ongoing Effects".

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

LinkXx wrote:
The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.

But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.

So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.

Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.

even if it was a special rule, which I still don't think is the case, it wouldn't need to confer, as the text reads "UNIT" not models. Again, the IC no longer separately exists for rules purposes, while he is a part of said UNIT.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.

Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).

A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.

That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.

Nope. You have not said that. Feel free to link a post of yours that proves you right. You will not be able to. You do not deal with special rules as abilities being conferred which is one of the key things making your argument not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:2)

Spoiler:

Stubborn
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.

This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.

Incorrect. There is no difference between the units as established in either version. The difference being the target of the rule.

The target here is the unit with the special rule. An IC does not give his special rule to the unit, so by joining the unit, the unit does not get it.

However, the IC is as much part of the unit here as he is in the previous version, and in the end, the target is still the unit.

Therefore, this version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the unit having the Stubborn ability and the ability being conferred to the IC.

Incorrect. You are ignoring the IC Special Rules rule that sets it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer to the IC and you are failing to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would meet the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule.


And you are contradicting what you said a post ago about Counter-Attack. If an IC attached to a unit is part of the unit then Nekooni's argument is correct and there is no difference between these two statements.





Are you going to revise what you said earlier?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.

Right, but it does not separate the IC from the unit when rules target the unit as a whole. Other conditions must still be met, but that does not change the fact the IC is still part of the unit.

You are ignoring the IC Special Rules rule which has set it so the IC is not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. The special rules must be specifically conferred. Another key point that is keeping your argument from RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.

Either you are lying or misinterpreting everything I have stated. I have never added "ongoing" to "effect" in this discussion, save to reference that section. I have stated that the effect of the special rule does get passed on to an IC if the effect of the special rule is focused on the unit as a whole. This is substantiated that Ongoing Effects still affect the IC after it leaves. If it is still affecting the IC when it leaves, that means the effects have to be in play while joined. So, too, even rules that are not ongoing but apply in those short cases before an IC can leave that are directed at a whole unit would also include the IC in its effect.

That is what was stated.

col_impact wrote:Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.

Special Rules are abilities which affect models or units with conditions outside the normal rules. The effect is what happens when the rule's ability is applied. Why can you not understand this?

col_impact wrote:The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.

Right, like affecting the unit the IC is part of. Because that is all Stubborn directs its ability's effects towards.

col_impact wrote:I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.

That is because you ignore what other people write, as demonstrated by this diversion to "Ongoing Effects".

Special rules are not effects. Special rules are abilities.

You are making up some whole new category called effect (using a dictionary as a rules source) and trying to use the rules for "Ongoing Effects" for how to handle the "effect" of the rule when the BRB provides no such distinction and no justification for doing so.

You have run rogue of the rules. You are making up your own categories and shoe-horning the rules for "Ongoing Effects" onto "effects" and then by virtue of sleight of hand slipping those rules onto special rules. Nice try but the rules do not support you.

This is another key reason why your argument is not RAW. Not even close.

Stick to the definitions and usage of terms in the BRB.

I do and that's why my argument is RAW and supported by the rules.

And back to being pointless


The unit scopes the IC as much as contains... Scopes an IC when the unit is the target of the special rule as is the case were talking about

Your failure to understand the difference is telling.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.

Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).

A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.

That is actually what I said, and HAVE said. Glad that you are finally paying attention and admitting it.

Nope. You have not said that. Feel free to link a post of yours that proves you right. You will not be able to. You do not deal with special rules as abilities being conferred which is one of the key things making your argument not RAW.

I JUST said half of that, not in the exact same way, but still I have just said that AND YOU QUOTED ME SAYING IT. You have responded to most of them, and now you cannot remember?!

I think we're done here.