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.
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's rules are not conferred upon the unit.". If the rules are conferred upon the character, doesn't that mean he has the rule? It seems like you're trying to split hairs here where there isn't really a hair to split.
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
It says so in the Independent Character rule, as an example of a special rule where the rules are conferred to the IC. GW leaves it as an exercise for the reader to determine the phrasing in the Stubborn rule that allows it to be conferred after declaring that it does indeed confer. It's generally been taken to be "a unit with at least one model with this rule", as most special rules related to units now (at least the ones in the main rulebook use either a version of that or else "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 16:53:30
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's rules are not conferred upon the unit.". If the rules are conferred upon the character, doesn't that mean he has the rule? It seems like you're trying to split hairs here where there isn't really a hair to split.
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
It says so in the Independent Character rule, as an example of a special rule where the rules are conferred to the IC.
The please quote where it says as much in the Stubborn rule, because it says no such thing. GW has been known to make mistakes (hence the large FAQ documents) and this is one of them.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
The please quote where it says as much in the Stubborn rule, because it says no such thing. GW has been known to make mistakes (hence the large FAQ documents) and this is one of them.
Okay, turning it around, please quote where in the Stubborn rule it says it doesn't confer, as Stubborn is an example cited in the IC rule as a rule with specific wording that is an exception to the "no conferring special rules" between IC's and units. Saying that what they say about stubborn being conferred in the IC rules strikes me as not being a typo at all; at least at the time they meant for it to transfer, and used the wording "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". If you don't accept that, then you are saying that when they wrote 7th edition they had absolutely no rules that could be conferred as that is the wording they have used, and has been accepted generally (pre Draft FAQ) for allowing it to confer. If you don't think that confers, feel free to let me know what other wording in Stubborn lets it be conferred, because they clearly said it IS conferred.
And now you're ignoring the rule you quoted earlier that specifically says it doesn't confer unless its specified in the rule. So again, where does it say in Stubborn confers to the Independent Character.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Ghaz wrote: Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
It says so in the Independent Character rule, as an example of a special rule where the rules are conferred to the IC. GW leaves it as an exercise for the reader to determine the phrasing in the Stubborn rule that allows it to be conferred after declaring that it does indeed confer. It's generally been taken to be "a unit with at least one model with this rule", as most special rules related to units now (at least the ones in the main rulebook use either a version of that or else "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule".
Actually, the Special Rules section of Independent Character rule states that Stubborn actually specifies it confers between IC and unit, not just as an example, but as it is in the Stubborn Special Rule.
This phrase, which is a condition/requirement for Stubborn to work, is not stated by the Independent Character rule as the condition to grant Stubborn. Stubborn does not state it as the sole condition to grant Stubborn. And in the end, Stubborn does not grant anything to any model (Independent or not), it only gives to a unit.
Which leads to, is the Independent Character included as part of the "unit" or not for Stubborn? If so, why not part of the unit for numerous detachment or unique special rules? If not, then Stubborn is as Ghaz says, a bad example and does not work.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 17:21:06
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Ghaz wrote: And now you're ignoring the rule you quoted earlier that specifically says it doesn't confer unless its specified in the rule. So again, where does it say in Stubborn confers to the Independent Character.
How am I ignoring the rule when it specifically cites Stubborn as an example of an exception?
Ghaz wrote: Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
It says so in the Independent Character rule, as an example of a special rule where the rules are conferred to the IC. GW leaves it as an exercise for the reader to determine the phrasing in the Stubborn rule that allows it to be conferred after declaring that it does indeed confer. It's generally been taken to be "a unit with at least one model with this rule", as most special rules related to units now (at least the ones in the main rulebook use either a version of that or else "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule".
Actually, the Special Rules section of Independent Character rule states that Stubborn actually specifies it confers between IC and unit, not just as an example, but as it is in the Stubborn Special Rule.
This phrase, which is a condition/requirement for Stubborn to work, is not stated by the Independent Character rule as the condition to grant Stubborn. Stubborn does not state it as the sole condition to grant Stubborn. And in the end, Stubborn does not grant anything to any model (Independent or not), it only gives to a unit.
Which leads to, is the Independent Character included as part of the "unit" or not for Stubborn? If so, why not part of the unit for numerous detachment or unique special rules? If not, then Stubborn is as Ghaz says, a bad example and does not work.
No, it's not stated, but it doesn't state which phrase in the Stubborn rule it is. It merely states the Stubborn Rule is an example. As to not granting anything to a model but to a unit, there has to be something in the Stubborn rule which allows it to be used in a unit with an IC attached. I would say that it's not that it gives something to a unit that allows it to be conferred upon a character (or a unit containing a character, in this case), as that would have meant that any rule that said "the unit may...." would apply to a unit with an IC attached. This had caused great problems with GW before having to FA!Q things where it merely said "the unit" because it wasn't clear. In this edition you see, at least in the main rulebook, them using phrases such a "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule" or "a unit consisting entirely of models with this rule". This has to be the qualifier that GW put in to be able to differentiate whether a unit can benefit from a rule or whether it can't with an IC attached. There may be other ways to do it also, but this appears to be GW's shorthand for communicating it.
Following from this, it does indicate that the IC is included as part of "the unit" for Stubborn as otherwise the unit wouldn't be able to use the rule. As to why he's not part of the unit for numerous detachment or unique special rules, those detachments and special rules normally have language involved that indicate that they won't transfer, such as rules for detachments and formations only applying to models from those detachments/formation. If going the other direction and Stubborn is a bad example and won't work, then there is no example that WILL work, and there should not be a citing for any example. We are not allowed to assume that it's a bad example, though (at least prre Draft FAQ - there we can assume they are just ignoring a lot of the rules they're FAQ'ing since they're ignoring and/or changing so many of them )
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/21 17:40:33
Ghaz wrote: And now you're ignoring the rule you quoted earlier that specifically says it doesn't confer unless its specified in the rule. So again, where does it say in Stubborn confers to the Independent Character.
How am I ignoring the rule when it specifically cites Stubborn as an example of an exception?
Not just as an example, but as it is in Stubborn, meaning Stubborn actually provides it. What is missing is where Stubborn actually states this situation, not just being implied from other sources.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Hesperus wrote:There actually is a default that, in order for a Special Rule to affect a unit at the unit level, all models must have it.
Incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote of this statement. This would also make such conditions in Fleet and Deep Strike superfluous and redundant.
I explained why that must be the default in the quote directly below. You haven't addressed the main point there: if that were not the default, then certain models would be able to take illegal actions (such as charging in the turn they arrive from Reserves). Please address that point, because I think it's the most important one.
I agree that the "all models" language in Fleet and Deep Strike is confusing; however, GW does sometimes include redundant language. In fact, the Deep Strike rule has another example of that: it specifies that Deep Striking units cannot charge on the turn they Deep Strike, even though the rules for Reserves would already prevent them from charging.
Hesperus wrote:That's because using the special rule would otherwise break another rule (or necessarily confer the special rule to a model that didn't have it, thereby breaking the default that special rules are not conferred to ICs that join a unit). For instance, imagine a special rule allows a unit to charge on the turn it arrives from reserves, and the rule doesn't have the "a unit with at least one model..." language. That unit is then joined (in reserves) by an IC that doesn't have the rule. The unit arrives from reserves. Can it charge? No, because if it did, a model that is not allowed to charge (the IC without the special rule) would be charging, and thus performing an illegal action.
What does "confer" mean in the 40K rulebook? Oxford English states this as "grant (a noun)" (the other is to discuss, which is not appropriate to the context) and synonymous with "bestow on, present with, award to, gift with, endow with", etc. So the unit does not grant its Special Rules to the IC, and the IC does not grant its Special Rules to the unit he joins.
The condition of possession is never stated as the reason why Stubborn works. This is an assumption that people latch on to because the alternative is too scary to deal with. There is nothing that states that a rule that affects a unit requires all models to have it by default. The standard is that a Special Rule can only be used by the model which has it, but these rules do not affect models directly at all.
Stubborn gives its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements. Fleet gives its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements. Counterattack does not give its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements, but only the model.
You're right that Stubborn has a unit-level effect. However, The rulebook specifically states (in the IC section) that Stubborn is conferred to ICs that join the unit, and that it is conferred because of the way the rule is written. Therefore, an IC joining a Stubborn unit has the Stubborn special rule conferred to it. I guess you could argue that it's irrelevant because the Stubborn rule operates at the unit level, but that doesn't change the fact that the special rule is conferred.
Is your position that it's really the benefit of the rule, not the rule itself, which is being conferred? Or that nothing is conferred and that part of the IC rules doesn't actually do anything?
Ghaz wrote: And now you're ignoring the rule you quoted earlier that specifically says it doesn't confer unless its specified in the rule. So again, where does it say in Stubborn confers to the Independent Character.
How am I ignoring the rule when it specifically cites Stubborn as an example of an exception?
Not just as an example, but as it is in Stubborn, meaning Stubborn actually provides it. What is missing is where Stubborn actually states this situation, not just being implied from other sources.
It's all there in Stubborn. I am not sure why you struggle to find it.
Stubborn is specifically phrased such that a unit that is heterogeneous with regards to a Special Rule will have the ability of the Special Rule homogeneously applied. Unless Special Rules are phrased along the similar lines as Stubborn, the ability of the Special Rules will remain heterogeneous and only be conferred to the models which actually have the Special Rule, which is the case for the Skyhammer detachment rules.
We aren't just dealing with "a unit" in the case of Special Rules like Hit & Run, Slow and Purposeful , etc. We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit later on in the sentence typically with the use of the word "can" which grants the ability. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies any model in the unit having the ability of the special rule.
In the case of Detachment rules that are applied to "the unit" the unit has the detachment special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the unit ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the unit ability since the Independent Character Special Rules rule was not satisfied.
Special rules that are written along the lines of Stubborn allow the abilities of special rules to spread beyond the models that have the special rules on their datasheet. If they aren't written along the lines of Stubborn the abilities of the special rules stay locked to the models that have the special rules on their datasheet.
col_impact, Charistoph has you on ignore, so he won't see your post. (Just letting you know not to expect a response from him). Still, as he is not the only one with that position, others might wish to take on your arguments (not me, since it looks like we're on the same side on this one).
As a summary though, I think it would be fair to say that the special rules, at least as they are in the main rulebook break down into 4 categories:
1) ones that say "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" or similar wording
2) ones that say "a unit comprised entirely of models with this special rule"
3) ones that say "a model with this ability may"
4) ones that don't deal with units or models (for example, saying "a weapon with this ability')
3 and 4 are irrelevant to the discussion as those aren't conferred one way or the other. Case 2 they aren't conferred because of the limitation every model in the unit has them. Case one is like Stubborn, where we are told by the IC rule that this confers between units and ICs, and vice versa. This still references back to the IC rules about "being part of the unit" so that it counts as part of the unit when a model in the unit confers the rules to the unit (and all the models in it).
I have noticed in passing that the Ignored One has responded to one of my posts. He has nothing more to add to this conversation that I will answer, save it be the OP asking specific questions on it.
Hesperus wrote:There actually is a default that, in order for a Special Rule to affect a unit at the unit level, all models must have it.
Incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote of this statement. This would also make such conditions in Fleet and Deep Strike superfluous and redundant.
I explained why that must be the default in the quote directly below. You haven't addressed the main point there: if that were not the default, then certain models would be able to take illegal actions (such as charging in the turn they arrive from Reserves). Please address that point, because I think it's the most important one.
Your statement did not provide any quoted references that specifically states this, though. In order for this to work, you would have to conflate terms outside of their English use, which has yet to be demonstrated in the rulebook itself.
Hesperus wrote: I agree that the "all models" language in Fleet and Deep Strike is confusing; however, GW does sometimes include redundant language. In fact, the Deep Strike rule has another example of that: it specifies that Deep Striking units cannot charge on the turn they Deep Strike, even though the rules for Reserves would already prevent them from charging.
Not everything that arrives by Deep Strike arrives from Reserves. Gate of Infinity is but one example of this.
Hesperus wrote: You're right that Stubborn has a unit-level effect. However, The rulebook specifically states (in the IC section) that Stubborn is conferred to ICs that join the unit, and that it is conferred because of the way the rule is written. Therefore, an IC joining a Stubborn unit has the Stubborn special rule conferred to it. I guess you could argue that it's irrelevant because the Stubborn rule operates at the unit level, but that doesn't change the fact that the special rule is conferred.
Correction. The Special Rules section of the IC Special Rule states that Stubborn specifically states it confers between unit and IC, not that it simply confers.
Wherein does Stubborn actually give anything to anyone?
What is given?
To whom does Stubborn give it to?
How is an Independent Character included in this?
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in Fleet?
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in First the Fire, Then the Blade?
Hesperus wrote: Is your position that it's really the benefit of the rule, not the rule itself, which is being conferred? Or that nothing is conferred and that part of the IC rules doesn't actually do anything?
Yes, to both, sort of. It has to be either way, and there is no middle ground without rewriting those specified rules.
In order for Stubborn to work, as the IC rules state it does, and without altering the language provided by Stubborn, the only thing being given or granted by Stubborn is "ignore any negative Leadership modifiers" and casts this benefit on "they", the unit. I will answer my questions above to demonstrate this.
Wherein does Stubborn actually give anything to anyone? When "they ignore".
What is given? Stubborn gives the effect of "ignor(ing) any negative Leadership Modifiers".
To whom does Stubborn give it to? It is given to "they", referring to "a unit" which meets its conditions. These conditions are, "contains at least one model with this special rule" and "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests"
How is an Independent Character included in this? It is not specifically included with the actual term. So, either the IC is completely part of "a unit" when Stubborn is first being read, or completely excluded. No mention of Independent Character is made in the Stubborn Special Rule. It can only be in "a unit" or not at all.
The only way an Independent Character can be included in this is by remembering that the Independent Character rule specifically states that "(w)hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...". The IC rules state to include him as part of the unit, which allows the IC to be the "one model". The IC Special Rules section does nothing to separate this consideration, save to make sure that people aren't borrowing the rules off of one Datasheet and placing them on the other. As noted earlier in another post, ICs are allowed to be affected by something that affects the unit they are joined to without any noted restriction on them.
The alternative is that when Stubborn refers to "a unit" it is not including the IC in this statement (as it is not specifically mentioned). This means a Dark Angel Captain in a squad of Guardsmen will be Stubborn himself, but not the rest of his unit (not much of an issue there, considering how these Tests are done), or a Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angels Tactical Squad can and will have its Leadership reduced while the Tactical Squad Sergeant will remain unaffected.
Since the rules state that Stubborn actually works, I will continue to operate under the first understanding rather than the second.
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in Fleet? The IC is treated as part of the unit. If the IC does not have Fleet while the rest of the unit does, it will not be rerolling any of its out of Phase movement because the unit failed its conditions.
If the IC is not part of the unit, then a unit with Fleet will still be able to reroll its out of Phase Movement, but the IC will be stuck with the first roll. And vice versa. This is actually the affect of the answer given for the Bounding Lope Draft FAQ question.
Again, just going by the same standard, I have to say that an IC without it will prevent a unit with Fleet from rerolling its Run and Charge, but also goes along if they do.
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in First the Fire, Then the Blade? The IC is treated as part of the unit. The unit is operating under a specific name. The units with a specific name gain a specific benefit from it when it fulfills its other conditions. The IC is included with the unit when it receives this benefit.
Alternatively, the IC is not part of the unit and we have a unit that only partially comes in from Reserves on Turn 1 or Turn 2 (an earlier rule in the same detachment) and only partially gets to Charge. The rule does not actually require all models to have it, just the unit getting to do it, and the IC gets left behind (again, going by the Bounding Lope Draft FAQ answer).
Going by the same standards, I have to go by what is more consistent with all the rules combined, and state that, yes, the IC does get to come in on Turn 1 or 2 and Charge with Assault Marines or gain Relentless with the Devastator Marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: 3 and 4 are irrelevant to the discussion as those aren't conferred one way or the other. Case 2 they aren't conferred because of the limitation every model in the unit has them. Case one is like Stubborn, where we are told by the IC rule that this confers between units and ICs, and vice versa. This still references back to the IC rules about "being part of the unit" so that it counts as part of the unit when a model in the unit confers the rules to the unit (and all the models in it).
Indeed. Army Special Rules are set up the same way. Any model may be carrying the rule, IC or not, so it has to be clear on the standards of possession to even work.
The big problem is that the detachment and unique (to a unit) special rules, like First the Fire, Then the Blade and Ethereal Interception respectively, do not carry any similar standards of possession. Instead they use terms like "an Assault Squad from this detachment", "this Deathmark unit", or simply states, "the unit does this". By simply going by the language of these rules, it makes no requirement for a model to have the rule to benefit, nor forbids models without the rules in the same unit from benefiting. They do not address the models at all in these types of rules.
And let me be clear on this, the phrase, "at least one model with this special rule" is very important in getting Stubborn to work from IC to unit (it technically being "a model in this unit"). It is just not what actually does anything to actually perform the movement on its own. It is a trigger, a condition, or an expectation, nothing more.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 22:43:20
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2016/10/21 22:08:48
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Nobody is saying that the IC is not included in the unit.
However, what happens in the case of Stubborn is the spread of the ability of Stubborn beyond the models that have the Stubborn special rule on their datasheet. Special rules are abilities by the way, as defined in the BRB. Special rules are NOT effects. Not sure where you got that notion as it is nowhere supported by the BRB.
Stubborn is not a unit special rule, although it will often be assigned to each model in a unit and for most intents and purposes act as a unit special rule. Stubborn is actually a model special rule that has specific phrasing that allows the conferring of the ability of the special rule to a unit that contains a model with Stubborn special rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" followed by "can" or "they ignore", etc. allows for the conferring of the ability of the special rule beyond just those models who have the special rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that the ability of the special rule is not conferred to the IC unless the special rule has phrasing which enable the spreading of the rule, which Stubborn has.
When a Formation rule gives a unit a special rule such as First the Fire, Then the Blade, the ability of the special rule does not spread to the attached IC. Sure, the IC becomes part of the unit when he attaches himself to the unit, but the Independent Character Special Rules rule has set it so that the abilities of special rules do not spread to the attached IC unless the Independent Character Special Rules rule is satisfied, which requires something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that specifically spreads the ability of the special rule beyond those who have it on their datasheet.
So phrasing along the lines of something like 'a Deathmark unit and any attached characters can' would specifically confer the ability of the Deathmark special rules to any attached characters and thus satisfy the Independent Character Special Rules rule.
So the IC does not get the ability of First the Fire, Then the Blade since he does not have that special rule on his datasheet and the special rule does not specifically spread the ability beyond those that have the special rule on their datasheet. The IC may count as part of the unit for all rules purposes but the Independent Character Special Rules rule must specifically be satisfied with phrasing that would specifically confer to the IC (e.g. 'and any attached characters').
The abilities of special rules do not spread to include more than the models that have them on their datasheets unless there is phrasing that specifically spreads the ability.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 03:32:36
Hesperus wrote:There actually is a default that, in order for a Special Rule to affect a unit at the unit level, all models must have it.
Incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote of this statement. This would also make such conditions in Fleet and Deep Strike superfluous and redundant.
I explained why that must be the default in the quote directly below. You haven't addressed the main point there: if that were not the default, then certain models would be able to take illegal actions (such as charging in the turn they arrive from Reserves). Please address that point, because I think it's the most important one.
Your statement did not provide any quoted references that specifically states this, though. In order for this to work, you would have to conflate terms outside of their English use, which has yet to be demonstrated in the rulebook itself.
I'm not sure what you mean by conflate here: what terms am I combining?
That aside, not everything needs to be explicit in the rules for it to have an effect. Any interpretation of the rules that leads to a contradiction is necessarily incorrect. That was what I was trying to say: if a model that joins a unit of assault marines with First the Fire, then The Blade would be part of a unit that charged in the turn it arrived from Reserves, even though it doesn't have a special rule that allows it to do so (the unit it joins has the special rule but, per the section of the IC rules we've been discussing, that rule is not conferred to the IC).
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're saying that the entire unit is the beneficiary of rules that (a) affect an entire unit, but (b) don't specify "models with [this special rule]" (e.g. Counterattack). That would be a reasonable interpretation if the IC rules only included the rule that "[w]hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." But that interpretation doesn't take into account the section on conferring special rules from unit to IC or vice versa. Because that section is more specific, it is an exception to the general rule about counting as part of a unit. And your interpretation (if I understand it correctly) would not give effect to that rule.
I should say that GW has done a pretty bad job here--the writers appear to use "model" and "unit" interchangeably in places, don't explain what they mean by "confer," and don't say which part of the Stubborn rule does the conferring. That's why there isn't an airtight argument on either side. But I believe my position--that "a unit with at least one model...." does the conferring, and that a special rule that only refers to "a unit" doesn't work if an IC without the rule joins the unit--is the only position that (a) gives effect to all the rules in the rulebook, and (b) doesn't lead to a contradiction.
Charistoph wrote:
Hesperus wrote: I agree that the "all models" language in Fleet and Deep Strike is confusing; however, GW does sometimes include redundant language. In fact, the Deep Strike rule has another example of that: it specifies that Deep Striking units cannot charge on the turn they Deep Strike, even though the rules for Reserves would already prevent them from charging.
Not everything that arrives by Deep Strike arrives from Reserves. Gate of Infinity is but one example of this.
That's actually debatable (you can argue that "using the rules for Deep Strike" includes using the rules about arriving from reserves), though I don't want to have the debate here. There are plenty of other examples of redundant language in the rules. Just grabbing one after a quick skim, the rules for melta weapons say, "If the weapon is more than half its maximum range away, it rolls to penetrate as normal." That sentence is clearly unnecessary; my guess is it's in there to save you from having to connect the dots yourself. I think that's also the case for the "entirely composed of" language in Deep Strike and Fleet.
Charistoph wrote:Wherein does Stubborn actually give anything to anyone? When "they ignore".
What is given? Stubborn gives the effect of "ignor(ing) any negative Leadership Modifiers".
To whom does Stubborn give it to? It is given to "they", referring to "a unit" which meets its conditions. These conditions are, "contains at least one model with this special rule" and "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests"
How is an Independent Character included in this? It is not specifically included with the actual term. So, either the IC is completely part of "a unit" when Stubborn is first being read, or completely excluded. No mention of Independent Character is made in the Stubborn Special Rule. It can only be in "a unit" or not at all.
The only way an Independent Character can be included in this is by remembering that the Independent Character rule specifically states that "(w)hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...". The IC rules state to include him as part of the unit, which allows the IC to be the "one model". The IC Special Rules section does nothing to separate this consideration, save to make sure that people aren't borrowing the rules off of one Datasheet and placing them on the other. As noted earlier in another post, ICs are allowed to be affected by something that affects the unit they are joined to without any noted restriction on them.
The alternative is that when Stubborn refers to "a unit" it is not including the IC in this statement (as it is not specifically mentioned). This means a Dark Angel Captain in a squad of Guardsmen will be Stubborn himself, but not the rest of his unit (not much of an issue there, considering how these Tests are done), or a Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angels Tactical Squad can and will have its Leadership reduced while the Tactical Squad Sergeant will remain unaffected.
Since the rules state that Stubborn actually works, I will continue to operate under the first understanding rather than the second.
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in Fleet? The IC is treated as part of the unit. If the IC does not have Fleet while the rest of the unit does, it will not be rerolling any of its out of Phase movement because the unit failed its conditions.
If the IC is not part of the unit, then a unit with Fleet will still be able to reroll its out of Phase Movement, but the IC will be stuck with the first roll. And vice versa. This is actually the affect of the answer given for the Bounding Lope Draft FAQ question.
Again, just going by the same standard, I have to say that an IC without it will prevent a unit with Fleet from rerolling its Run and Charge, but also goes along if they do.
By these same standards, how is an Independent Character included or excluded in First the Fire, Then the Blade? The IC is treated as part of the unit. The unit is operating under a specific name. The units with a specific name gain a specific benefit from it when it fulfills its other conditions. The IC is included with the unit when it receives this benefit.
Alternatively, the IC is not part of the unit and we have a unit that only partially comes in from Reserves on Turn 1 or Turn 2 (an earlier rule in the same detachment) and only partially gets to Charge. The rule does not actually require all models to have it, just the unit getting to do it, and the IC gets left behind (again, going by the Bounding Lope Draft FAQ answer).
Going by the same standards, I have to go by what is more consistent with all the rules combined, and state that, yes, the IC does get to come in on Turn 1 or 2 and Charge with Assault Marines or gain Relentless with the Devastator Marines.
Okay, this clarifies your position a lot for me. Here's where we disagree: I think that whether an IC is supposed to be considered part of the unit is specified in "A unit with at least one model with this special rule," "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule," or "A unit [full-stop]." That is the part of stubborn that appears to refer (admittedly indirectly) to the possibility that a unit might have an IC attached to it. I think it's implausible that the fact that a rule operates on "a unit" is the relevant language, because it doesn't even implicitly talk about having models with different special rules in a unit. Also, if that were the relevant language, then GW could just say that ICs benefit from rules that operate on an entire unit--Fleet, etc. would be explicit exceptions to this because of the "entirely composed of" language.
Basically, I think you're getting the default backwards: your interpretation means that, among rules that operate on units, those that state "A unit [full-stop]" apply to units with attached ICs. This means that ICs are effectively considered part of the unit for those rules, which means they get the benefit of rules they don't have--again, I think the best example is an otherwise-illegal charge. Because the IC rules say the default is that special rules are not conferred, I think the default is that a rule affecting "a unit [full-stop]" does not apply to a unit with an attached IC. I realize that "apply" is not synonymous with "confer," but again, it's the only way to give effect to the special rules section of the IC rules in a consistent manner.
2016/10/22 04:22:19
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
There are a lot of house rules going around by one side of this discussion. Any argument that adopts any of these house rules needs to label itself as a house rule.
House Rule #1: the Independent Character Special Rules rule is broken (or lying to us). Stubborn doesn't actually confer so we don't have to follow the Independent Character Special Rules rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule is not broken at all. It is very easy to see that with regards to a special rule like Hit & Run the phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . . can" confers the ability of the special rule from the model that has the Hit & Run special to a unit that contains that model. Of course ICs are part of the unit they join so all that needs to be satisfied is that Hit & Run has something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that would satisfy the Independent Character Special Rules. Indeed, Hit & Run has nearly identical phrasing and that phrasing serves the exact same purpose. Basically, the Independent Character Special Rules rule is not broken at all.
House Rule #2: special rules are effects
The BRB never describes special rules as effects. The BRB actually describes special rules as abilities.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
So any argument that treats a special rule as anything other than an ability is a house rule.
House Rule #3: use the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects rule to govern how special rules apply to ICs
This house rule is bizarre and an example of rules abuse. Not only are special rules not effects, but trying to use the rules for Independent Charactes and Ongoing Effects to govern all special rules is confusing the ability of special rules to generate an Ongoing Effect with the beneficial or harmful effect that an Ongoing Effect causes on a target unit. Blind and Soul Blaze for example are special rules that weapons have and each of these abilities cause detrimental effects on target enemy units. Those detrimental effects are not special rules themselves and they should never be confused with the actual special rule. Some people are intentionally confusing them in order to try to allow for all sorts of Battle Brother shenanigans, apparently.
I have already pointed out several times that none of these house rules need to be implemented. The rules work fine following RAW and the Draft FAQ merely clarifies how it works for those who are having trouble seeing how it works. See the spoiler below for an entirely RAW approach that relies on no house rules
Spoiler:
Let's dig in and fully explicate why an Independent Character attached to a unit in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force does not get the Skyhammer Annihilation Force unit's special rules.
Consider the case of a 3 man unit of Crisis Suits which I think sheds light on the issues involved. You purchase Vectored Retro-thrusters for one of the models giving that model Hit & Run and Fleet. So basically you have a model that has Hit & Run and Fleet, but you don't have a unit that has Hit & Run and Fleet.
The thing to determine is if the ability of the special rule on that model confers to the unit or not.
Hit & Run reads "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . . can" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will confer to the unit and the unit will have the Hit & Run ability.
Fleet reads "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will not confer to the unit and no model in the unit will have the Fleet ability.
The use of the indefinite article in "a unit" means that "a unit" itself is being used in a non-specific, general way. If all one says is "a unit" then nothing is being specified at all about "a unit". "A unit" can refer to a unit as described on an Army List Entry or it can refer to a unit with an Independent Character attached to it or it can refer to a unit that is shooting, or a Deathmark unit, etc. "A unit" could refer to a unit that has no models with a special rule.
But, we aren't just dealing with "a unit". We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies how the ability of the special rule of at least one model confers to the entire unit. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the special rule . . . can" then the Hit & Run ability will confer from the model or models with the special rule to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to specify how the ability of the special rule of at least one model confers to the entire unit) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
#############################
So now let's consider the case of an Independent Character attached to 3 man unit of Crisis Suits where one model has Hit & Run and Fleet.
Essentially it works out the same way as when only one model in a unit has a special rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule simply reinforces the way the ability of a special rule propagates through a unit that is heterogeneous with respect to a 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.
The Special Rules rule requires that a special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Hit & Run, we have already identified that something to be the dependent adjectival clause ("that contains at least one model with this special rule"). Not only is the clause worded the same as Stubborn but it also works to the same effect (to specify how the ability of the special rule of at least one model confers to the entire unit). We are simply dealing with the same specified kind of conferring from model to unit that we are dealing with in the case of Stubborn.
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule of the model to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies the rule entirely.
#############################
Okay. So far so good. These are the results one would expect based on our discussion of the 3 man unit of Crisis Suits.
But what happens in the case of a rule like Objective Secured?
Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.
In the case of Objective Secured, the troop unit has the special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the Objective Secured ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the troop unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the Objective Secured ability since the Special Rules rule was not satisfied. So if only the Independent Character is in range of an objective then it cannot take control of the objective away from non Objective Secured units.
The Draft FAQ merely validates what I and several others have been arguing for quite some time now.
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
In short, Stubborn is specifically phrased such that a unit that is heterogeneous with regards to a Special Rule will have the ability of the Special Rule homogeneously applied. Unless Special Rules are phrased along the similar lines as Stubborn, the ability of the Special Rules will remain heterogeneous and only be conferred to the models which actually have the Special Rule on their datasheet, which is the case for the Skyhammer detachment rules.
Special rules that are written along the lines of Stubborn allow the abilities of special rules to confer beyond the models that have the special rules on their datasheet. If they aren't written along the lines of Stubborn the abilities of the special rules stay locked to the models that have the special rules on their datasheet.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 05:15:31
Hesperus wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by conflate here: what terms am I combining?
"Confer" with "benefit". They are not exactly synonymous in the context of this statement, and you have to change the wording in order to replace "confer" with "benefit" or later use of "apply".
Hesperus wrote: That aside, not everything needs to be explicit in the rules for it to have an effect. Any interpretation of the rules that leads to a contradiction is necessarily incorrect. That was what I was trying to say: if a model that joins a unit of assault marines with First the Fire, then The Blade would be part of a unit that charged in the turn it arrived from Reserves, even though it doesn't have a special rule that allows it to do so (the unit it joins has the special rule but, per the section of the IC rules we've been discussing, that rule is not conferred to the IC).
Why is it a contradiction in this case? What I am seeing here is a confusion of entities. Some actions are referred to as unit actions, and some as model actions. Some results are focused on the unit, while some focus on the model.
Models do not Charge, units do. If the unit's Charge has a successful roll, you move models at that point. The unit is what is denied from Charging when arriving from Deep Strike or from Reserves, while First the Fire removes this restriction from the unit that carries the required name. Simply put, the models themselves have no restriction against Charging from Deep Strike, they just move when the unit is capable of doing it.
In order to properly separate them out, you would have to treat the IC as a separate unit while at the same time treating it as part of another unit. This leads to dangerous ground, because I could then perform actions against the IC's unit, and little things like Look Out Sir would fail to protect the IC, even though he is also part of a different unit
Hesperus wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're saying that the entire unit is the beneficiary of rules that (a) affect an entire unit, but (b) don't specify "models with [this special rule]" (e.g. Counterattack). That would be a reasonable interpretation if the IC rules only included the rule that "[w]hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." But that interpretation doesn't take into account the section on conferring special rules from unit to IC or vice versa. Because that section is more specific, it is an exception to the general rule about counting as part of a unit. And your interpretation (if I understand it correctly) would not give effect to that rule.
Not quite. If the rule says it affects the unit, it affects the entire unit without distinction. In order for the rule to be used, its conditions must be met. For Fleet, that is all models in the unit must have Fleet and that the unit is either Running or Charging. Remember, Running and Charging are both unit-based actions. These actions then affect the models which are then moved (in this case).
It takes in to account three different sections of the IC rules: Joining and Leaving a Unit allows us to count the IC as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes; Special Rules then tells us that the Special Rules are not given/granted between IC and unit (benefits are not mentioned here); and Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which imply to us that rules that affect a unit do include the IC as part of it because the IC still gets affected by them even after leaving the unit (so long as the duration of the effect lasts).
If an IC does not have Fleet when joined to a unit with Fleet, he doesn't get the rule. He is still part of the unit when Fleet goes and checks to see how much of the unit has the rule. Fleet down-checks the unit if the IC doesn't have it and they do not get to reroll Run or Charge. The required conditions were not triggered so the rule fails.
Hesperus wrote: I should say that GW has done a pretty bad job here--the writers appear to use "model" and "unit" interchangeably in places, don't explain what they mean by "confer," and don't say which part of the Stubborn rule does the conferring. That's why there isn't an airtight argument on either side. But I believe my position--that "a unit with at least one model...." does the conferring, and that a special rule that only refers to "a unit" doesn't work if an IC without the rule joins the unit--is the only position that (a) gives effect to all the rules in the rulebook, and (b) doesn't lead to a contradiction.
We do agree that GW does a piss-poor job at tracking their rules and keeping their standards coherent. Let's just look at "Unit Type" which is more appropriate to "Model Type" when you take in to consideration the chaos things like "Character" have done to it, and that's not even considering the headache of Tau Drones in a Firewarrior/Pathfinder/Broadside unit.
If a DSR (Detachment Special Rule) or a UUSR (Unit Unique Special Rule) is meant to be taken like Fleet or Stubborn in terms of the number of possessing models required for the unit to receive its benefit, then it should explicitly state as such and save us all a headache like this batch of Draft FAQs have been. Until that happy day that their writers stop sitting on their heads and letting drunken monkeys do the logic strings, we are left to guess at what they mean.
If the IC Special Rules section actually stated that phrase as being what causes the rule to be confered, you would be correct, but it does not. The condition of the number of models who already have the rule does absolutely nothing ON ITS OWN to confer/grant/bestow anything.
Hesperus wrote: Okay, this clarifies your position a lot for me. Here's where we disagree: I think that whether an IC is supposed to be considered part of the unit is specified in "A unit with at least one model with this special rule," "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule," or "A unit [full-stop]." That is the part of stubborn that appears to refer (admittedly indirectly) to the possibility that a unit might have an IC attached to it. I think it's implausible that the fact that a rule operates on "a unit" is the relevant language, because it doesn't even implicitly talk about having models with different special rules in a unit. Also, if that were the relevant language, then GW could just say that ICs benefit from rules that operate on an entire unit--Fleet, etc. would be explicit exceptions to this because of the "entirely composed of" language.
You contradict yourself then. You give three possibilities, one of which is the exact trigger I mentioned, unless you are actually using "[full-stop]" in a literal sense as in "When a Deathmark unit [full-stop] arrives from Deep Strike Reserves...".
But also, I should also point out, that "a unit" does not actually do the conferring of anything, either. I am simply stating that "a unit" is the only place we could possibly find a reference to an IC in Stubborn. If an IC does not have the Special Rule in question, how could it be found in "a model with this special rule"?
And if we left out ICs, you would find more units with models with different rules on the table than not. The Character Unit Type takes care of that. In addition, there are armies like the Orks and Eldar where special rules are given to their unit's champions/sergeants alone on a regular basis, and Tau non-Battlesuit Infantry can be upgraded similarly. They have had Orks and Eldar doing this for decades and Tau as soon as they were released. They tried a form of it for Necrons and Space Wolves in their previous codex, but thankfully dropped that concept like a bad habit (leading to other issues with the Space Wolves, see their Wolf Scouts for reference). So it is more common than you are thinking.
Hesperus wrote: Basically, I think you're getting the default backwards: your interpretation means that, among rules that operate on units, those that state "A unit [full-stop]" apply to units with attached ICs. This means that ICs are effectively considered part of the unit for those rules, which means they get the benefit of rules they don't have--again, I think the best example is an otherwise-illegal charge. Because the IC rules say the default is that special rules are not conferred, I think the default is that a rule affecting "a unit [full-stop]" does not apply to a unit with an attached IC. I realize that "apply" is not synonymous with "confer," but again, it's the only way to give effect to the special rules section of the IC rules in a consistent manner.
Why not? A Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad does not actually get Stubborn. Stubborn never says that model gets the Stubborn Special Rule. Stubborn just says the unit benefits from it, and the IC rules state that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes and effects (both beneficial and harmful) that target a unit an IC has joined will also be affected. The IC Special Rules section never states anything about restricting "benefiting" or "applying", just "confer(ing)" a special rule.
The rule and ability itself do not cross between unit and IC, but that does not inherently mean that the models without the rule cannot receive the benefit of what it does (the effect).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 04:30:35
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
If the IC Special Rules section actually stated that phrase as being what causes the rule to be confered, you would be correct, but it does not. The condition of the number of models who already have the rule does absolutely nothing ON ITS OWN to confer/grant/bestow anything.
Why not? A Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad does not actually get Stubborn. Stubborn never says that model gets the Stubborn Special Rule. Stubborn just says the unit benefits from it, and the IC rules state that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes and effects (both beneficial and harmful) that target a unit an IC has joined will also be affected. The IC Special Rules section never states anything about restricting "benefiting" or "applying", just "confer(ing)" a special rule.
The rule and ability itself do not cross between unit and IC, but that does not inherently mean that the models without the rule cannot receive the benefit of what it does (the effect).
This is where your argument is flat out wrong and you are abusing the Independent Character and Ongoing Effects rule.
Spoiler:
House Rule #3: use the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects rule to govern how special rules apply to ICs
This house rule is bizarre and an example of rules abuse. Not only are special rules not effects, but trying to use the rules for Independent Charactes and Ongoing Effects to govern all special rules is confusing the ability of special rules to generate an Ongoing Effect with the beneficial or harmful effect that an Ongoing Effect causes on a target unit. Blind and Soul Blaze for example are special rules that weapons have and each of these abilities cause detrimental effects on target enemy units. Those detrimental effects are not special rules themselves and they should never be confused with the actual special rule. Some people are intentionally confusing them in order to try to allow for all sorts of Battle Brother shenanigans, apparently.
What happens in the case of Stubborn is the conferring of the ability of Stubborn beyond the models that have the Stubborn special rule on their datasheet.
Stubborn is not a unit special rule, although it will often be assigned to each model in a unit and for most intents and purposes act as a unit special rule. Stubborn is actually a model special rule that has specific phrasing that allows the conferring of the ability of the special rule from a model that has the special rule to a unit that contains that model. So its a model special rule that confers an ability to its host unit. Until you can wrap your head around this you will be forever confused.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" followed by "can" or "they ignore", etc. allows for the conferring of the ability of the special rule beyond just those models who have the special rule. In fact, a special rule phrased thusly will confer the ability of the special rule to the entire unit.
Now if it were not for the Independent Character Special Rules rule then the special rule would automatically confer to any attached Independent Characters. However, the Independent Character Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that the ability of the special rule is not conferred automatically to the IC. The Independent Character Special Rules rule forces a check to see if the special rule has phrasing which enable the conferring of the ability of the special rule from the model with the special rule to the unit. Stubborn has exactly this kind of phrasing. Indeed, Stubborn becomes the standard.
The abilities of special rules do not confer to include more than the models that have them on their datasheets unless there is phrasing that specifically spreads the ability.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 06:42:12
2016/10/22 05:07:40
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
I'll have to reply at length tomorrow, but I wanted to clear up one piece of confusion. When I gave three options, I was referring to rules that start, (1) "A unit containing at least one model..." (like Stubborn), (2) "A unit comprised entirely of models...", like Fleet, and (3) "A unit" or "Units", like certain formation special rules. I didn't mean all special rules that operate at the unit level. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
It takes in to account three different sections of the IC rules: Joining and Leaving a Unit allows us to count the IC as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes; Special Rules then tells us that the Special Rules are not given/granted between IC and unit (benefits are not mentioned here); and Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which imply to us that rules that affect a unit do include the IC as part of it because the IC still gets affected by them even after leaving the unit (so long as the duration of the effect lasts).
Special rules are not effects. You are making that up and this is your personal house rule. Ongoing Effects have nothing to do with special rules, except for those few special rules that actually cause Ongoing Effects, but the Ongoing Effects caused are not special rules. Do not confuse ability with effect. Special rules are abilities.
You need to mark you argument as house rule and a far-fetched one at that.
Spoiler:
House Rule #3: use the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects rule to govern how special rules apply to ICs
This house rule is bizarre and an example of rules abuse. Not only are special rules not effects, but trying to use the rules for Independent Charactes and Ongoing Effects to govern all special rules is confusing the ability of special rules to generate an Ongoing Effect with the beneficial or harmful effect that an Ongoing Effect causes on a target unit. Blind and Soul Blaze for example are special rules that weapons have and each of these abilities cause detrimental effects on target enemy units. Those detrimental effects are not special rules themselves and they should never be confused with the actual special rule. Some people are intentionally confusing them in order to try to allow for all sorts of Battle Brother shenanigans, apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hesperus wrote: I'll have to reply at length tomorrow, but I wanted to clear up one piece of confusion. When I gave three options, I was referring to rules that start, (1) "A unit containing at least one model..." (like Stubborn), (2) "A unit comprised entirely of models...", like Fleet, and (3) "A unit" or "Units", like certain formation special rules. I didn't mean all special rules that operate at the unit level. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
I hope you are keeping track of all of the House Rules that are riddled throughout his argument.
1) Charistoph states that Stubborn does not actually confer so effectively the Independent Character Special Rules rule is lying to us.
2) Charistoph states that special rules are effects which is no where supported by the BRB.
3) Charistoph states that we instead look to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects to work out how special rules benefit ICs. This is truly bizarre rules abuse.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 08:39:20
2016/10/22 07:52:20
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
And the Ignored One keeps clamoring for attention. No doubt repeating himself and everything else he has said in previous threads on this.
Hesperus wrote: I'll have to reply at length tomorrow, but I wanted to clear up one piece of confusion. When I gave three options, I was referring to rules that start, (1) "A unit containing at least one model..." (like Stubborn), (2) "A unit comprised entirely of models...", like Fleet, and (3) "A unit" or "Units", like certain formation special rules. I didn't mean all special rules that operate at the unit level. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Still, none of these statements do anything to include an IC as part of a unit on their own. And nothing tells us that any key phrase is what triggers the Special Rule to confer, much less these. The only places that an IC are ever stated to be part of a unit are in the IC rules under their Joining and Leaving a Unit and Ongoing Effects sections. At least, for the Special Rules not based on Weapon Attacks, anyway.
And even then, those portions of a rule do not actually provide any access to actual confer anything, either. It is, at best, a means of identifying a recipient by a condition that needs to be met, nothing more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 18:14:49
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2016/10/22 08:15:19
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Charistoph wrote: And the Ignored One keeps clamoring for attention. No doubt repeating himself and everything else he has said in previous threads on this.
Just helping the thread keep track of all the house rules you are resorting to in your rogue interpretation of the BRB. Replacing the Independent Character Special Rules rule with the Independent Characters Ongoing Effects rule is a whopper of a house rule!
Alternatively, people could simply follow the RAW and not resort to any house rules as I do.
Hesperus wrote: I'll have to reply at length tomorrow, but I wanted to clear up one piece of confusion. When I gave three options, I was referring to rules that start, (1) "A unit containing at least one model..." (like Stubborn), (2) "A unit comprised entirely of models...", like Fleet, and (3) "A unit" or "Units", like certain formation special rules. I didn't mean all special rules that operate at the unit level. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Still, none of these statements do anything to include an IC as part of a unit on their own. And nothing tells us that any key phrase is what triggers the Special Rule to confer, much less these.
You simply need to read the rules. I am not sure why you continue to be so dumbfounded as to how the Stubborn special rule on a model confers the ability of Stubborn to the unit. See the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
What happens in the case of Stubborn is the conferring of the ability of Stubborn beyond the models that have the Stubborn special rule on their datasheet.
Stubborn is not a unit special rule, although it will often be assigned to each model in a unit and for most intents and purposes act as a unit special rule. Stubborn is actually a model special rule that has specific phrasing that allows the conferring of the ability of the special rule from a model that has the special rule to a unit that contains that model. So its a model special rule that confers an ability to its host unit. Until you can wrap your head around this you will be forever confused.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" followed by "can" or "they ignore", etc. allows for the conferring of the ability of the special rule beyond just those models who have the special rule. In fact, a special rule phrased thusly will confer the ability of the special rule to the entire unit.
Now if it were not for the Independent Character Special Rules rule then the special rule would automatically confer to any attached Independent Characters. However, the Independent Character Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that the ability of the special rule is not conferred automatically to the IC. The Independent Character Special Rules rule forces a check to see if the special rule has phrasing which enable the conferring of the ability of the special rule from the model with the special rule to the unit. Stubborn has exactly this kind of phrasing. Indeed, Stubborn matches the standard set forth by the Independent Character Special Rules rule because it is the very standard mentioned by the rule.
The abilities of special rules do not confer to include more than the models that have them on their datasheets unless there is phrasing that specifically confers the ability.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 08:25:10
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
)