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:Monster Rain - you do realise the game is written in English, and is not an inclusive ruleset dont you?

If you dont believe this, show me the *in game* definition of "the". Or "a". etc.

No we've shown the game is not an inclusive ruleset, show something that contradicts what I have already stated: that as soon as you add a non-GK unit (IC) to a GK unit it cannot, by the definition of "unit", be a GK unit any longer.

Or you fail. But you've apparently run out of arguments already.

It's been explained really well twice. See Jeffersonian and Mike Leon's posts.

Please actually respond to something to do with rules, and not things that you've invented.

Monster Rain,

I'll agree it's compelling to still think of a unit comprised of a GK squad and a non-GK IC as still GK in terms of shooting. 5th edition rules for shooting and cover seem to be fairly in line with Leon and Jeffersonian's posts.

However, this is not a rule. There is no rule that says a unit of Grey Knights is not a unit of Grey Knights once it has a Space Marine hero attached. It's simply language. The language involved is exclusionary, not the rules themselves. Since the rulebook doesn't define units as anything other than comprised of model(s) we have to just look at the language used in the codex.

As for USR or non-USR special rules affecting an IC, I could see Jeffersonian's argument being absolutely valid that due to the shooting rules the unit would be obscured because I'm not shooting at the IC. That sounds very reasonable, except that in the case of things like this, the language disallows them from using shroud because the unit can't be a GK unit for the purposes of shroud, unless the IC leaves the unit. The same way a unit with a rule allowing them to break certain convetions like move through cover (like scouts/rangers) that have an IC attached will not be able to use that ability. They don't lose the ability, but as long as that IC is attached they aren't a 'unit with the ability' as dictated in the USR.

That's why the ability doesn't confer.. oh, and it has an asterisk. The unit simply can't do things the IC can't do except in very rare, dictated circumstances. Being shot at is an action against that unit, so if the IC can't shroud, neither can the unit. The lowest common denominator is that they are all models within a unit, which means if you put 4 of 5 GK models in cover, the IC would be in cover in the same way a Tyranid Hive Tyrant can get a cover save by a unit of Warriors (I believe that's the unit, if not Guards).


Edit: I would concede, however, in light of 5th edition rules that the RAI could be just an error of omission on GW's part not realizing this would come up, but as far as RAW goes, it's just the language.

Zain60 wrote:Monster Rain,

I'll agree it's compelling to still think of a unit comprised of a GK squad and a non-GK IC as still GK in terms of shooting. 5th edition rules for shooting and cover seem to be fairly in line with Leon and Jeffersonian's posts.

However, this is not a rule. There is no rule that says a unit of Grey Knights is not a unit of Grey Knights once it has a Space Marine hero attached. It's simply language. The language involved is exclusionary, not the rules themselves. Since the rulebook doesn't define units as anything other than comprised of model(s) we have to just look at the language used in the codex.

As for USR or non-USR special rules affecting an IC, I could see Jeffersonian's argument being absolutely valid that due to the shooting rules the unit would be obscured because I'm not shooting at the IC. That sounds very reasonable, except that in the case of things like this, the language disallows them from using shroud because the unit can't be a GK unit for the purposes of shroud, unless the IC leaves the unit. The same way a unit with a rule allowing them to break certain convetions like move through cover (like scouts/rangers) that have an IC attached will not be able to use that ability. They don't lose the ability, but as long as that IC is attached they aren't a 'unit with the ability' as dictated in the USR.

That's why the ability doesn't confer.. oh, and it has an asterisk. The unit simply can't do things the IC can't do except in very rare, dictated circumstances. Being shot at is an action against that unit, so if the IC can't shroud, neither can the unit. The lowest common denominator is that they are all models within a unit, which means if you put 4 of 5 GK models in cover, the IC would be in cover in the same way a Tyranid Hive Tyrant can get a cover save by a unit of Warriors (I believe that's the unit, if not Guards).

The Shrouding doesn't have an asterisk... but I don't see that as a dealbreaker in favor of my argument since the codex is two editions old.

The reason I think my interpretation is correct is that the Special Rule isn't being conferred onto the IC. The IC has joined "a unit of Grey Knights" and it is them that are using the Shrouding, not the IC. He also gains the Fearless USR when he joins them. Or is that out the window as well, since they aren't Grey Knights anymore?

Zain60 wrote:I would concede, however, in light of 5th edition rules that the RAI could be just an error of omission on GW's part not realizing this would come up, but as far as RAW goes, it's just the language.

It would be a good question for an FAQ, that's for sure.

Actually, he gets fearless as listed in the fearless special rule in the BRB, however, codex descriptions always trump USR descriptions. So unless it says otherwise in the codex, that hero
would in fact get fearless. That's RAW.

Zain60 wrote:Actually, he gets fearless as listed in the fearless special rule in the BRB, however, codex descriptions always trump USR descriptions. So unless it says otherwise in the codex, that hero
would in fact get fearless. That's RAW.

So when the unit of Grey Knights turns into something entirely different when joined by an IC, it keeps all of it's special rules but the Shrouding?

Seems that way (although I don't own that codex so can't say for sure what the description is in it beyond what's on the thread)
Since that could be the case (them conferring most things), I see an argument for RAI in this case, just not RAW. I don't think
anyone means to say that when that codex came out that they intended no one but GK heroes to benefit from tagging along
with a unit of GK for shrouding, but that that's just the way it's worded. As you said though, a great opportunity for GW to 'man up'
in an FAQ.

I really don't think it's worded that way at all though.

A unit of GK is just that, whether or not it has an IC attached to it.

That would begin another circular discussion though, which is pretty pointless really. Agree to disagree and all that.

It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

IC 's that join a GK now are no longer a squad of composed of only GK's. So how could you presume to change the verbage of the squad, and allow shrouding to work on this squad? If the ic is not a gk, then the squad is no longer made up of grey knights.

If we follow the reasoning here of some of the posters, then you could attach a gk hero to a squad, and give them shrouding as well. Which doesnt make sense.

L

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except the bin is a poor example, as shrouding is a psychic field that all members generate together. A non gk ic would disrrupt this.

Fluff agreeing with raw, how odd..

Natfka wrote:
If we follow the reasoning here of some of the posters, then you could attach a gk hero to a squad, and give them shrouding as well. Which doesnt make sense.

Actually, if you read the thread, you'd see that this has already been dismissed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:L

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except the bin is a poor example, as shrouding is a psychic field that all members generate together. A non gk ic would disrrupt this.

Yeah, that's why it's a metaphor. Unless you know of some apples that have the Shrouding... If we're going to be dealing with abstract concepts you're going to need to be a lot less pedantic here.

To sufficiently over-explain to make sure everyone is keeping up, something preventing one from seeing the apples would also prevent one from seeing the orange that's been added.

I'm not sure what the problem is.. but if anyone's taking apples and oranges as part of the debate, that's kinda sad. How about I juice it for you.

How about juice? What happens if you make orange juice, and for effect you toss in some pineapple juice? Well, it's still juice. However, linguistics dictate that this is no longer orange juice or pineapple juice.

Linguistics dictate a grey knight unit joined by a black templar IC is a unit comprised of grey knights and black templar(s). That unit can no longer be called a grey knights unit or a black templar unit. If an effect happens to all grey knight units and attached characters, then you could have a tropical smoothie for all I care.

Zain60 wrote:then you could have a tropical smoothie for all I care.

Mmmmm... delicious.

I was actually pretty happy with the way the thread had gone up to a few posts ago.

Where were we, Zain? Arguable either way, wait for a FAQ, agree to disagree?

Discuss it with your opponent, and dice off if need be?

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse monster rain

If something is stopping you from seeing the apples because only apples are there, and you throw an orange in, then you can see both apples and oranges.

Same here, it is the language that is defeating you, over and over and over

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Same here, it is the language that is defeating you, over and over and over

And yet I've met in the middle with someone who isn't on the same side as me. I refer you again to Jeffersonian's post and ask you to come up with something from the rules that says otherwise. The rules for ICs joining and leaving units with Special Rules doesn't help, since the DH codex is two editions old. There is no concrete answer. I say let people do it, because it's unclear and frankly it's hardly game-breaking.

Zain disagrees with me and he and I are having a perfectly civil discussion. I'm just asking you to cite some rules and not make things up, and maybe if you calm down the ad hominem arguments we can accomplish something useful.

Monster Rain wrote:

Zain60 wrote:then you could have a tropical smoothie for all I care.

Mmmmm... delicious.

I was actually pretty happy with the way the thread had gone up to a few posts ago.

Where were we, Zain? Arguable either way, wait for a FAQ, agree to disagree?

Discuss it with your opponent, and dice off if need be?

Yes, I like smoothies. I'm happy agreeing to disagree because I know that in 5th edition, if people don't understand the language behind the RAW,
they'll be screened by something else anyway. In that regard, it's pretty light hearted, because the only time I would come up against this is someone
running a squad of GK's in front of foot slogging units so everyone gets cover or is shrouded. I really don't see that happening all too often and when
it is, I doubt seriously I'll be shooting too many AP3 and lower weapons at them.

If it does come up, I'll politely explain the rules to them, and if they disagree, I'll just smile politely and let it go because they have a total of 12 models
on the board and it doesn't scare me to give that one poor IC a save if he really really wants one. Then I'll talk to the TO about it afterwards in a non-attributive way
and suggest they set a standard one way or the other so during gameplay things like this aren't a problem.

However, this is the kind of thought-provoking and curiousity-quenching debate that we should have on the forum rather than in gameplay. So, we
can agree to disagree, yes, but I wish we could all agree. If we can't, trust me, it's not personal... I'd have a smoothie with most of you, oranges or not.

One bone I will throw the people still clinging to the other side of the debate: it's a rough technicality, but rules are technical. So, unless errata comes out
stating that their little psychic field is strong enough to contain a 'foreign object' inside it without wearing on its structural integrity then we, either
take the technicality, or we make house rules / RAIWPI style change amongst friends / gaming groups etc. Many many times, even in the INAT as Yakface
has pointed out, people attempt to clarify rules as most people would play them if a rule seemed ridiculous because the rulebook authors hadn't thought
of a particular case and didn't write the language in a clear an unambiguous way on a certain topic.

For my part, if I was given a choice between recognizing a technicality and playing how I think it should be played, I'll play a technicality because less
people outside of my particular sphere of friends will accept that than the logic my fellow players came up with to justify a particular rules tweak.

Monster Rain, I'll give you the opposite challenge: Please provide a rules quote which supports your position that a unit composed of five Grey Knight models and two Imperial Guard models is a Grey Knight unit.

Sorry, you don't know what ad hominem means at a guess.

I asked you to show how "unit" is defined internally to mean what you claim it means, as opposed to how the language the game is written in defines it. As I have demonstrated that the game isn't inclusive, as zain has as well, thatis the only way your side can be correct. Stating something is unclear does not makeit so.

If you wish to claim inclusive ruleset, please show the ingame definition of "the". I'm still waiting.

It seems monster rain has decided to dismiss any other ruling than his own opinion, so trying to argue the raw seems pointless for now.

solkan wrote:Monster Rain, I'll give you the opposite challenge: Please provide a rules quote which supports your position that a unit composed of five Grey Knight models and two Imperial Guard models is a Grey Knight unit.

There's nothing more to add. Read the thread, and come to your own conclusion.

It's pointless to claim 100% certitude on something so vague that is clearly the result of reading a 3rd Ed Codex in a 5th Ed context. The rules for joining a squad with special rules, and also the rules for the USRs, say that a given rule should specify whether or not it is lost when an IC joins the unit. The DH Codex doesn't make this distinction.

The two sides of the argument are these:

A unit of Grey Knights with an IC attached are just that. A unit of Grey Knights with a little bit extra on the side. GK con queso.

The other side says a unit of Grey Knights with an IC attached become something else entirely. I subscribe to the former. I don't know why this is such a big deal.

This will also be the 3rd time in this thread that I'll be happy to move on with my life. If you want to continue discussing this, fine, just leave me out of it.

TheFirstBorn wrote:It seems monster rain has decided to dismiss any other ruling than his own opinion, so trying to argue the raw seems pointless for now.

Wow. Just... wow.

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except that:
a) it was not a metaphor but an example to show that according to the English language a group of things type A does not stay a group of things type A if you insert a type B item
b) if we would want to stay with your metaphor the bin doesn't change the fact that the content is not a bunch of apples but a bunch of apples with and an orange. Which then would mean there is no bin anymore, but that's another story.

Nitewolf wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except that:
a) it was not a metaphor but an example to show that according to the English language a group of things type A does not stay a group of things type A if you insert a type B item

You don't know what a metaphor is, but you're going to lecture me about the English language? I love the internet.

This is 4.

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except that:
a) it was not a metaphor but an example to show that according to the English language a group of things type A does not stay a group of things type A if you insert a type B item

You don't know what a metaphor is, but you're going to lecture me about the English language? I love the internet.

And up to now I actually thought you at least argumented in a civil way. Oh well, that's the internet as you correctly noticed (the only correct thing about that post of yours).
About me not knowing what a metaphor is, probably you are the one who should look it up, then think hard and notice you were being an . Alas, I doubt it (it's the net after all).

This is 4.

...whatever that's supposed to mean.

Nitewolf wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitewolf wrote:It is certainly arguable either way.
A bunch of apples with an orange in it is no longer a bunch of apples imho.
Same for a squad of GK with an IC from another chapter or an army of GK with allied forces.

Using your metaphor...

If that bunch of apples were in a bin that kept you from seeing them, and you threw an orange in there with it, would you still not be able to see them? I say yes.

Except that:
a) it was not a metaphor but an example to show that according to the English language a group of things type A does not stay a group of things type A if you insert a type B item

You don't know what a metaphor is, but you're going to lecture me about the English language? I love the internet.

And up to now I actually thought you at least argumented in a civil way. Oh well, that's the internet as you correctly noticed (the only correct thing about that post of yours).
About me not knowing what a metaphor is, probably you are the one who should look it up, then think hard and notice you were being an . Alas, I doubt it (it's the net after all).

Am I being uncivil?

Calling the GKs apples and the IC an orange is a metaphor. Saying there were "like" apples and oranges is a simile. Are we really back onto this again?

This thread isn't about apples, oranges, juice, smoothies, metaphors, or similies.

Unless there's new, less antagonistic conversation on the issue that illuminates us, I'd say it comes down to how people describe a unit consisting of different toy soldiers.

a) unit of silver toy soldiers with black toy soldier
b) unit of black and silver toy soldiers

Zain60 wrote:This thread isn't about apples, oranges, juice, smoothies, metaphors, or similies.

Unless there's new, less antagonistic conversation on the issue that illuminates us, I'd say it comes down to how people describe a unit consisting of different toy soldiers.

a) unit of silver toy soldiers with black toy soldier
b) unit of black and silver toy soldiers

Yes!

Sweet, sweet reason.

In the BRB, in every instance mentioning Independent Characters joining a unit (this doesn't concern leaving one) he is essentially part of the whole unit. If your linguistic logic train stops at that station, you still have a Unit hanging out within 2" of another unit. However, the BRB describes units joined in this way being treated as the same unit.

Common dictionary usage of a Unit would be this:
Unit,Military. an organized body of soldiers, varying in size and constituting a subdivision of a larger body.

A unit is a collective. It is a word describing any number of constituent subsets making up a set. In describing anything as a collective, we must describe its subparts.

In that context, linguistics dictate that once absorbed into the mass, this soldier, varied in size from the rest constitutes a subdivision of the unit. Subdivisions are divisions of a whole pure number: 1. The unit. The collective.

Mathematically, parts of a set need not be related, but if they are not related, then they are subsets. The original set is no longer homogenous but can still be whole. It is still a single set, but cannot be annotated mathematically without mentioning its subset. C = (A+B).

Describing items that aren't homogenous but are still one collective by some means of association (see: unit, human, people) is vague sense. Once you describe it further, any other subset must then be described as follows:

Assuming a unit is a container word for a number of models as assumed in the definition of unit given in the BRB

|A A A A A| = Collective or collective of A.
You can use the collective term and amplify it with the constituent part.
|B| = Collective or collective of B

|A A A A A B| = Collective or collective of A and B.
You can use the collective term but once amplified by one subset is no longer whole without its other subset.

In order to describe it as some people suggest the following would happen to the logic train:

|A A A A A| + |B| - Collective of A and Collective of B, it would be incorrect to say Collective of A and B because there are two wholes. These collectives aren't homogenous nor whole.
Therefore linguistically it would have to be acknowledged as two collectives; two units. They are not and therefore the secondary logic fails. You either accept B as part of the new whole,
or B is booted from the collective and is its own collective apart from A.

Clear as mud I'm sure!

Dude... You just blew my mind.

What you're saying makes sense, to a point.

Still... you know... to me... GK + IC = GK + IC

Reflexive Style.

Not (GK + IC) = X

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All this smoothie talk may actually make me leave my house on this rainy Sunday. Curse you, Dakka!

Glad I could help.