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.

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....

No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't

BRB wrote:While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters

The point you're trying to argue is that the "Special Rules" section not only rules how Special Rules are confered but also how their effect / benefit is shared - even though there is another section to the IC rules that explains how to deal with effects, including those created by Special Rules (Blind, for example). That is what "the other side" disagrees with, since the rule only speaks of confering Special Rules themself, and the counter-argument to that is to not use the Dictionary definition of "to confer" but to use context ("How is Stubborn written?") to determine what "to confer" means, or to consider the effect of a Special Rule as part of the rule instead of as an "Ongoing Effect".

Since both sides insist that their definition of "to confer" is correct, there's really no reason to argue anymore - either you use one or the other, there's not going to be a middle ground or definitive answer that both sides will accept outside of GW stepping up and saying what they had in mind writing this.

col_impact wrote:
Can someone post the Deathpack formation rule?

It says:

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

Now, because hit rolls are worked out on an individual model basis, a unit that had been joined by an IC could make use of the option to re-roll 1s (with the IC obviously missing out on that benefit).
They could not use the other option because the IC is prohibited from doing so under the standard game rules if the unit performed a Run action in the previous shooting phase.

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....

No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't

So, theyre not a "part of the unit for all rules purposes"? Odd, I could have sworn there was a rule stating that....

No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit

Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words, or wil you just continue to insult others?

BRB says:

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.

Using the yellow circle of friendship when people violate the rules of this forum isnt "snitching". Keep up

So can you explain the difference between "confer" and "benefit"? Or is that "rules lawyering" to use the actual words in th rule, and not the ones you jsut conveniently make up?

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....

No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't

The actual rule states: "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...". So as far as any rule looking at the unit as a whole, the IC is considered a normal member of the unit. He doesn't actually get any of the rules like he was in the datasheet per the rule about IC Special Rules, but nothing separates the IC and unit in to being two identifiable entities when a rule addresses the unit as a whole.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not have the effect of 'For Glory, For Russ" extended onto him.

But, does the IC even need the benefit of 'For Glory, For Russ'?

I came across a rule in the BRB that allows an IC (who follows the rules for characters) to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules which grant units the ability to charge in situations where they are normally disallowed from charging.









The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

col_impact wrote:
The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

The rule against Charging after Running affect the unit. So, either the IC didn't Run, and so did not prevent his unit from Charging afterward, or a rule that allows a unit to Run and Charge is bypassing this restriction against the unit.

You are not allowed to consider the IC and the unit separate in either case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So can you explain the difference between "confer" and "benefit"?

Maybe you should, since you're the one claiming it makes a difference

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or is that "rules lawyering" to use the actual words in th rule, and not the ones you jsut conveniently make up?

It's rules lawyering when you "conveniently" ignore a specific rule in favour of a general rule all because of a technicality

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC would not benefit from the effect of For Glory, For Russ per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need For Glory, For Russ to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

The rule against Charging after Running affect the unit. So, either the IC didn't Run, and so did not prevent his unit from Charging afterward, or a rule that allows a unit to Run and Charge is bypassing this restriction against the unit.

You are not allowed to consider the IC and the unit separate in either case.

I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.

col_impact wrote:
I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.

You did not quote the relevant portion of the Deathpack formation rule which states it excludes the IC from the Deathpack unit. The unit runs, the unit is permitted to ignore the restriction against Charging after Running. You are adding needless complications.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have plotted out the chain of permission and I consider the IC exactly in the way the rules allow. A basic rule has the unit not be able to charge after the run. A special rule whose scope is Deathpack formation unit (does not include the IC) allows the unit to charge after run. A basic rule allows the IC to charge if the unit charges.

You did not quote the relevant portion of the Deathpack formation rule which states it excludes the IC from the Deathpack unit. The unit runs, the unit is permitted to ignore the restriction against Charging after Running. You are adding needless complications.

Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.

col_impact wrote:
Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.

What are you talking about? It specifies it just as much as Stubborn does. Just because it doesn't use the exact same phrase doesn't mean it isn't as specific.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Its a special rule and is therefore subject to the IC Special Rules rule which sets special rules to not extend their benefits from unit to IC unless "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

There is nothing in the Deathpack formation rule that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Fortunately though with regards to charging, the IC does not need the special rule.

What are you talking about? It specifies it just as much as Stubborn does. Just because it doesn't use the exact same phrase doesn't mean it isn't as specific.

Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).



There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.

col_impact wrote:
Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

Spoiler:

a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule

There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.

So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.

The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone. It just is a very liberal in the qualifications as to a unit being able to get it based on the number of models in the unit. It does not actually say anything is given to anyone. "Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

So, again, quote both and prove that one is not as specific as the other. Off hand, I bet the Formation rule is actually more specific in its target.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Stubborn has a clause which logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

Spoiler:

a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule

There is nothing specified in the Deathpack formation rule itself (as in Stubborn) that extends the benefit of the special rule to the IC.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not automatically extend their benefit onto the IC.

So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.

The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone. It just is a very liberal in the qualifications as to a unit being able to get it based on the number of models in the unit. It does not actually say anything is given to anyone. "Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

So, again, quote both and prove that one is not as specific as the other. Off hand, I bet the Formation rule is actually more specific in its target.

The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.

Waiting . . .

OK there are a few points to this.

First we have:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters

This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit.
So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)

Then we encounter Special Rules

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

So there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules
A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)

Charistoph wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.

Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.

The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.

So let me break it down for you....

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|

The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument

Secondly...

Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit

Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things

As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.

Independant Character Special Rule
...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"

This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:

Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule.
The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack"
As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit
The exception isn't there, so you can't do it

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.

Waiting . . .

QFT

col_impact wrote:
The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.

Waiting . . .

I made a case denying yours works, do not think that you can just shift it back because you said so, so I will place this under "cannot and therefore will not".

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.

Waiting . . .

I made a case denying yours works, do not think that you can just shift it back because you said so, so I will place this under "cannot and therefore will not".

I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.

Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.

 karlosovic wrote:
OK there are a few points to this.

First we have:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters

This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit.
So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)

Then we encounter Special Rules

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

So there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules
A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)

Charistoph wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.

Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.

The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.

So let me break it down for you....

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|

The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument

Secondly...

Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit

Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things

As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.

Independant Character Special Rule
...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"

This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:

Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule.
The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack"
As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit
The exception isn't there, so you can't do it

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule. You have to definitively point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Deathpack formation rule.

Waiting . . .

QFT

Considering you based you entire argument on a unjustified assumption and insertion of your own wording into the rule as highlighted and emboldened above, you have negated the rest of your argument.

 karlosovic wrote:
OK there are a few points to this.

First we have:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters

This is a general rule about characters joining a unit. It tells us that when a unit chooses a target for shooting, the character must shoot at the same target as he is "part of the unit". When a unit encounters Difficult Terrain, it affects the the character because he is part of the unit.
So this rule is a reference to the Core Rules, because Core Rules affect units as a whole (and that's the section that contains this rule)

That part is an assumption that it is only talking about Core Rules. It does not state "Core" Rules, it states "all" rules.

 karlosovic wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
Then we encounter Special Rules

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may sound obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

This is expanded upon in the Independent Character Special Rule

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

So there is a distinction created between Rules (or Core Rules) and Special Rules
A Character becomes part of the unit for Rules, but as specified in the Special Rules, the IC is only affected by Special Rules that specifically allow for it - like Stubborn

Special Rules are rules that models possess as applied by their datasheets, as noted in the Special Rules introduction you quoted above, and that is the distinction between them. This restriction about conferring the rules comes almost right after the rule about joining a unit. Almost like it was stopping people from taking the Special Rules on the unit's datasheet and virtually placing them on the IC's and vice versa right after they were talking about being in the unit, Look Out Sir!, and Heroic Morale.

 karlosovic wrote:

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

Some of you are making ridiculously argumentative and irrelevant comments about this one (which should be against the forum rules, if it isn't already)

I know, but you are still going to go and do it anyway, too. Ironic.

 karlosovic wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone.

Charistoph wrote:So, can't/won't quote the other rule to prove it is not as specific.

The phrase you rely upon does not give anything to anyone.

So let me break it down for you....

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

|___________Part that talks about who is affected_________| |____________Part that talks about what the rule does_______________|

The part that talks about what the rule does is simply the effect of the Stubborn Special Rule, and is irrelevant to this discussion. That's why I left it out, not because it changes the argument

Yes, the "who" is "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests", and what it does is "ignore any negative Leadership modifiers". This is a point I have brought about numerous times. They focus on the first clause of the "who" while ignoring the second, and use that first clause as the beginning, end, and only means by which special rules are "conferred" between units and ICs, all while ignoring what the whole rule of Stubborn actually states.

The highlighted portion you quoted me quoting is pointing out that it is not a literal case of transferring anything, rule OR benefit. This line is just establishing one of the conditions and specifically the numbers in the unit involved required to have the rule. The "at least one model with this special rule" just establishes a minimum requirement of one model, and this could be a regular unit member or the IC. In this specific case, the IC without Stubborn, is only found in "the unit" portion of the rule and expecting other models in the unit to carry the rule. The unit, including the IC, still has to fulfill ALL its requirements in order to be affected, including taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

Therefore, requiring this one specific phrase, and only this phrase, is disingenuous without also requiring the unit to be taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

 karlosovic wrote:
Secondly...

Charistoph wrote:"Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Can you address that confer and benefit are two different words

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the rule does NOT "specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules" - it states instead they are not conferred.
Nothing about benefit

Firstly, invoking the phrase "RAW side" does not magically grant you some higher authority, or even necessarily make it true. You're "conveniently" ignoring a whole bunch of important "Rules as Written", so in fact you're NOT on the RAW side of things

And this is where it REALLY goes off the rails. Col_impact is more fond of trying to make his claim have weight by saying he sticks to RAW (which I have demonstrated he most definitely does not) while ignoring the words he actually quotes. One time he actually quoted one sentence which said one thing, and said it was proof positive of the exact opposite.

 karlosovic wrote:
As far as the hang up on specific words here, it's meaningless. There exists no relevant distinction in the Warhammer 40,000 Rules between the words "confer", "inherit", "benefit", or the fact they used the word "contains" in the Stubborn Special Rule. In fact, quite the opposite.

Independant Character Special Rule
...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

They use "confer" in a place that points specifically at another section that makes no mention of the word "confer"

This means "confer" is NOT an operative word (and I don't even know where you found "benefit"), so it doesn't matter how you phrase it - the important thing is that a Special Rule only applies to an Independent Character if the Special Rule in question says (somehow) that it will

If "confer" is not an operative word, then what is it? A status word like "is"? No, it is an action verb and used as an action verb, therefore it is quite "operative". "Confer" is not synonymous with "at least one model" without a literal statement making it such. Any such assertion otherwise is either seeing what you want to see or sophistry.

And if it doesn't matter how it is said, then why can we not take the example of Stubborn and apply it in other places. Col_impact and others are stuck on the specific phrases, not us. Stubborn places conditions on a unit and provides a benefit to the unit (which the IC counts as part of) when those conditions are met. Any other purview is self-delusion at best, deliberately ignoring the actual Written Rules at worst.

 karlosovic wrote:

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

This Special Rule makes no mention of it being "conferred" upon an Independent Character, it makes no allowance for the unit "contain[ing] at least one model", or any other such wording that would allow an exception to the rule:

Unless specified in the rule itself ...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

The IC is NOT a "unit from the Deathpack" so he doesn't have the Special Rule.
The IC has JOINED a "unit from the Deathpack"
As the special rule doesn't provide an exception to include him, it does not confer the rule onto an IC that joins the unit
The exception isn't there, so you can't do it

You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".

The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".

Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.

Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.

Already addressed numerous times in other threads which you cannot refute without going in to HYWPI. Try again.

Charistoph wrote:


And this is where it REALLY goes off the rails. Col_impact is more fond of trying to make his claim have weight by saying he sticks to RAW (which I have demonstrated he most definitely does not) while ignoring the words he actually quotes. One time he actually quoted one sentence which said one thing, and said it was proof positive of the exact opposite.

One time at band camp . . .

This is nothing but hot air, Charistoph.

Charistoph wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
I am able to sit back because there is a rule you cannot ignore. You can choose to ignore me but the rule is still there and you must satisfy its wording. The burden is on you. You don't get to magically hand wave the rule away.

Point definitively to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or concede.

Already addressed numerous times in other threads which you cannot refute without going in to HYWPI. Try again.

Again pointing to nothing but hot air.

Burden is on you buddy. The IC Special Rules rule is preventing 'For Glory, For Russ' from affecting the IC until you can prove otherwise.

Charistoph wrote:


You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".

The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".

Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.

None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?

It hasn't been asked and being a noob, but in this formation can you swap the 1x wolf lord for a named wolf lord like Harald, or cans? There still a wolf lord.

Sn33R wrote:
It hasn't been asked and being a noob, but in this formation can you swap the 1x wolf lord for a named wolf lord like Harald, or cans? There still a wolf lord.

Nope. The formation references a specific ALE. If it allows you to use other wolf lords it uses a footnote and lists the named wolf lords you can use in place of the wolf lord in the formation.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".

The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".

Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.

None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?

It specifies as much as the Stubborn rule specifies.

Actively compare the two and use the words that are written as the words are actually presented. Stubborn does not actually state anything about conferring anything between IC and unit. Stubborn confers its benefits to the unit that meets its qualifications which includes the IC only as part of that unit. So does the Deathpack rule.

What you believe to be the cause cannot be the cause as it does not work as a written instruction to that effect.

And that is why I went over those semantics, Karlosovic.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

You missed something. The IC has JOINED a 'unit from the Deathpack" and "counts as a part of a unit from the Deathpack".

The rule places conditions on the unit (be the Wolf Lord or withing 12" of him at the start of the shooting phase), and then provides a benefit to that unit when it meets them. The IC is counts as much a part of this unit in this case as it would with Stubborn. The rule includes as many exceptions as Stubborn provides. "A unit from the Deathpack" will always have "at least one model with this special rule" so long as it exists as a unit (barring some very rare exceptions). Remember, "it doesn't matter how you phrase it".

Therefore, For Glory, For Russ, will include the joined IC when it works.

None of this matches the criteria of "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Nothing in the rule itself is specifically conferring the special rule to the IC. You have not satisfied the IC Special Rules rule. Try again?

It specifies as much as the Stubborn rule specifies.

Actively compare the two and use the words that are written as the words are actually presented. Stubborn does not actually state anything about conferring anything between IC and unit. Stubborn confers its benefits to the unit that meets its qualifications which includes the IC only as part of that unit. So does the Deathpack rule.

What you believe to be the cause cannot be the cause as it does not work as a written instruction to that effect.

And that is why I went over those semantics, Karlosovic.

Incorrect.

In the Stubborn rule itself is a clause which logically extends the effect of the rule to attached models.

"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"

That clause logically extends the effect of the rule to attached models (which includes the IC).

That clause is in the rule itself.

The Deathpack rule has no such clause or anything that would extend the effect to models attached to the unit.

And as we know per the IC Special Rules rule, special rules of the unit do not confer automatically to the IC.

The special rule must specifically confer the special rule to the IC with something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

So far you have been relying on rules that are not in the Deathpack rule itself such as the "an IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.

But the IC Special Rules rule requires that there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

So you are utterly failing to pay the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule.

However it is very easy to pay the costs of the IC Special Rules rule when the rules support it.

Consider Acute Senses and Stubborn.





It's easy to spot the clause that extends the benefit to attached models (ie the IC).

The same pattern is easily spotted in these special rules.

OK so explain this:

Why did GW write a special rule that says an IC only has a unit's special rule conferred on him if the special rule specifically says so - if it was just going to be negated by your "when an IC joins a unit he he counts as the unit for ALL THE RULES EVEN RULES THAT SAY HE DOESN'T" ?

Kinda makes that whole Special Rule a bit of a misprint, does it?


And if the Rune Priest instead joined a unit of Blood Claws, does he also now get Rage? Because a unit of Blood Claws has Rage, and he's now part of the unit

It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.

Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"

Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Considering you based you entire argument on a unjustified assumption and insertion of your own wording into the rule as highlighted and emboldened above, you have negated the rest of your argument.

No, you're wrong
Read the section:
General Principles - Basic Versus Advanced

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules

So the basic rule is that a character counts as part of the unit
The advanced rule is a special rules that says he only gets other special rules if the rule says so



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.

Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"

Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.

Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer

 karlosovic wrote:
Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer

But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.

Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.