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.

Now you've grasped the essence of this thread.

Side A: Ethereal Interception doesn't allow the Destroyer Lord to 'ride along' as it were because the rule isn't 'conferred' to him.

Side B: Ethereal Interception doesn't require that the Destroyer Lord possesses the rule in order to benefit from it because benefit =/= confer.

Then there's arguments about rules targeting units and specific clauses in certain examples... yadayada and around we go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side A: Formation special rules can't be used on ICs attached to the effected units because those rules do not 'confer' to the character.

Side B: If the special rule targets 'the unit' then the rule does not need to 'confer' to the character in order for him to benefit from it.

It all really hinges on the term confer and what it means by 'Stubborn' being an example. It doesn't explain how Stubborn is an example so people quote specific clauses from the Stubborn rule that make it an example and the two sides disagree on which part of that rule makes it an example.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Again, You are confusing things here. You are confusing gaining the rule itself and being affected by the rule as being the same thing. This is not true, nor could it actually work this way.

I am not confusing anything. I have never said that gaining the rule is the only way to be affected by the rule. NOT ONCE.

I quoted you saying that, or at least heavily implying that.

Rasko wrote:What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist.
The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.

Rasko wrote:This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again,
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain."
So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!!
At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.

All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless!
Since the Special Rule is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it can also include IC's if they pass the checklist!
Unfortunately, it does not pass the checklist. Which brings us to what you said down here.
...
The same distinction IS MADE for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc. When have I said otherwise?
An IC can not gain the benefits of Stubborn until he joins the unit. When he joins the unit and it triggers, it must pass the checklist. It passes.
How did that sequence right there, "put a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference'?

I don't know how to read that any other way than that you considered a unit to be affected by the special rule upon creation, and that is why the IC would not be affected by it.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Triggers are meaningful, without them, we could execute those rules any time we choose. Remember what I said about Stubborn. Stubborn cannot benefit a unit in any other situation than when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Any other Leadership Test or rule that references Leadership, Stubborn is completely, 100% useless.

You and I both know I said that triggers were meaingless in the context of determining who has the special rule itself. Not who benefits from the special rule.
Obviously triggers are important when determining when abilities go off. Is that a joke? I said that the IC would gain the benefit of the Unit Special Rule, even though he does not have the rule itself.
However, he must pass the checklist because it is a Unit Special Rule.

Just so we are on the same page, what you do define as a "Unit Special Rule"?

As for the other thing, it did not read that way to me. As noted above, it seemed you were trying to say one thing, but it came across another way.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
And again, remember there is a rule regarding ongoing effects, which means they had to affect the unit AND the IC in the first place in order for the IC to still be affected when it leaves AND when not be affected if it joins afterward.

What are you even talking about here? We are talking about Unit Special Rules. I don't understand how ongoing effects come into play at all in this specific situation.

Special Rules provide effects when certain triggers occur, such as Stubborn requiring a Morale Check or Pinning Test before it can apply its ability to ignore negative Leadership modifiers.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
I have explained this. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two for the rule and giving it more authority than it has.
Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all?

So we are once again, back to
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = "Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation"
The phrase doesn't specifically state "Independent Characters". It doesn't have to!
You completely ignore "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
The BRB explicitly provided an EXAMPLE, that literally ALL THE OTHER UNIT SPECIAL RULES follow, in how they want a clause if a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, affects an IC.
This is an example that is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.

So I ask you again, why does "On Target" get special snowflake treatment?

Already explained. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two from the referenced rule and giving it more authority than it has.

Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all? It has to since the reference to Stubborn states that this rule specifically states it, otherwise the reference does not work. The only way "Independent Character" works is if it is considered part of the unit which has fulfilled the rule's requirements and triggers. That one phrase does not literally carry the weight you think it does.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Posession of the rule is not noted as a requirement in this rule. See Counter-Attack, Fleet, and Move Through Cover for such examples.

Once again, I never denied that possession of the rule is a requirement. I was stating that it doesn't have it, for checklist purposes.

Actually, that IS what you are stating. Not directly, but indirectly. Otherwise, why make such a big deal about the timing of how the unit gets the rule? Keep in mind, these same rules are applied to the units all in the same fashion and time. A Formation can provide all its units with Stubborn just as easily as a unit's datasheet or another rule such as Grim Resolve.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Stubborn only references "a unit" as receiving the benefit of the rule. "At least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use for the special rule, not permission to spread the rule through the unit. The only way an Independent Character can be referenced in Stubborn is if we consider it as part of "a unit".

At no point in the Special Rules section of the IC rule does it literally state that phrase as being the requirement. It is this unsupportable preconception to which I reference. You have a skewed perspective in that when a model receives the rule, it is immediately affected by it instead of when the rule actually tells you to apply it.

It is here, where your own unsupported preconceptions come into play. The BRB sets a precedent that you can follow, by providing an example.
That this is a precedent is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.
The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we do some mental hoops.
Also, don't take what people say out of context in an argument. It makes you look foolish. Context is everything.

I agree, context is everything. I do try to take what they state in context. So, why are you all taking this one phrase out of context? "At least one model with this special rule" is not synonymous with "every model in this unit gets this special rule and benefit, including Independent Characters."

Not all other unit-affecting special rules follow this example, though. All Universal Special Rules that are intended to be pass their benefits back and forth between IC and unit do state this. However, not all unit-affecting special rules use this, and when they do not, the IC is affected or not depending on if they are included as part of the conditions.

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

Counter-attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.

Move Through Cover
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra D6 when rolling to move through difficult terrain and is not slowed by charging through difficult terrain. In most circumstances, this will mean that, when moving, the unit rolls 3D6 and picks the highest roll. Furthermore, a model with the Move Through Cover special rule automatically passes Dangerous Terrain tests.

I have highlighted the above two rules that carry your phrase. I have highlighted in green the phrase. I have highlighted in blue that which affects the unit and would include any ICs attached to the unit, or would allow an IC with the rule to affect the unit. I have highlighted in red that which affects only the models which possess the rule.

The On Target special rule is not set up in this manner. It is setup like Stubborn where it states a unit as the target, a condition for that unit to meet, and then lists the benefits that unit receives. Requiring to having one condition in Stubborn is no different than stating they only benefit an IC when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
I have pondered this numerous times, as I have stated. Whereas it seems that you did not ponder the last couple of questions I left you. Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind because they usually require a perspective that cannot be supported by the written rules because they are either completely made up or ignoring whole sections of rules.

I thought you were trying to learn, but it seems you are not and would rather rant.

Who is ranting?

Than actually consider questions I asked and address them. You have chosen not to, so instead of trying to learn, you just go off.

EnTyme wrote:I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I even used it as an example in this thread. Now, keep in mind if that Destroyer Lord has a Staff of Light or Gauntlet of Fire, it will not be automatically Wound on a 2+, that is limited to just Deathmarks, not granted to the Deathmark unit. But yes, the Deathmark unit is allowed to do this. The only way to separate the Destroyer Lord from this affect is to separate it from the unit some how. Counter-Attack does this by restricting its bonuses to the models with the rule.

 EnTyme wrote:
But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.

At what point does Ethereal Interception require all models to have it as does Fleet? Or does it just name a unit to do it?

 EnTyme wrote:
But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.

"The unit can..."

Is the Destroyer Lord part of the unit? Yes. Hence, it doesn't matter whether or not he actually has the rule. He benefits from the effect due to being a part of the unit. The rule doesn't say "Part of the unit can..." and also say "A unit entirely composed of models with the Ethereal Interception rule can...".

 _ghost_ wrote:

Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.

and there is the fault!

Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.

the often mentioned clause :

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...

is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
FWIW Zealot, Stubborn etc. are probably worded the way they are because there are ICs with those rules that can grant them to a squad by joining it. The ...On Target rule, meanwhile, isn't present anywhere else.

Still, Stubborn doesn't actually explicitly call out ICs, it is only through the IC rules telling us the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes (all, not some) that we know ICs are affected by Stubborn. Similarly, an IC in a Vanguard Veteran squad with ...On Target or in an Assault Squad with First the Fire, Then the Blade may assault after deep striking, an IC in a unit from the GK formation may deep strike turn 1, and a non-KDK IC in a unit with Blood For the Blood God generates Blood Tithe points when killing a Character in a challenge. So much for "Special Snowflake", eh?

 Kriswall wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.

"The unit can..."

Is the Destroyer Lord part of the unit? Yes. Hence, it doesn't matter whether or not he actually has the rule. He benefits from the effect due to being a part of the unit. The rule doesn't say "Part of the unit can..." and also say "A unit entirely composed of models with the Ethereal Interception rule can...".

Incorrect. And your responses underscore the critical shortcoming in your argument!

The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).



So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.


We know this for certain. It is right there in the rules and cannot be denied except by those who are being intentionally obtuse. An IC joined to a unit with unit special rules does not automatically benefit from the unit's special rules. The unit's special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend their benefit to the IC by default. The sharing of the benefits of unit special rules between IC and the joined unit needs to be turned on by some specific mechanic.


So now that we have established that there is no sharing of benefits by default, how do we get unit special rule benefit sharing turned on?

The IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

When you consider the logic involved, it's super easy to point to the exact thing in the Stubborn rule that turns on sharing between the IC and the joined unit.

"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" turns on unit special rule sharing between IC and the joined unit.

An IC that had a unit special rule could now have the joined unit benefit from the special rule by virtue of the logic of that clause.

Vice versa works also. A unit with a unit special rule that is joined by an IC can extend the benefit of the special rule to the IC by virtue of that clause.

Without that clause (or something similar) the benefits of unit special rules are not shared between IC and the joined unit.

For a clause to work like Stubborn does, it does not need to stated in the exact same way, it just needs to logically accomplish the extending of the special rule to models attached to the unit.

For example, a Painboy's Dok's Tools can extend the benefit of the Painboy's special rule to "all models in the unit" which logically includes attached ICs



But, unit special rules without such a clause do not extend their benefits.

So, Objective Secured does not extend the benefits of its unit special rule to the attached IC.

On Target does not extend the benefits of its unit special rule to the attached IC.

And Ethereal Interception does not extend the benefit of its unit special rule to the attached IC.


How do we know this? Because the case of an IC joined to a unit with unit special rules (ie rules that say "a unit . . ." or that target a unit) has been explicitly laid out by the IC Special Rules rule as no sharing of benefits by default.



It is important to adhere to the rules!

Of course, any of you are free to house rule how your play group wants to handle this, but the rules themselves are exceedingly clear on how to resolve the issue.

Col_impact

It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.

No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .

harkequin wrote:
Col_impact

It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.

No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .

It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception on the D Lord. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Col_impact

It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.

No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .

It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.

Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.

Jesus H. Christ. I knew I shouldn't have posted again. I don't know why I keep doing this. You guys are taking an ambiguously worded and poorly written rule set expressly intended for casual, non-competitive play and trying to find absolute meaning. It isn't going to happen. 17 pages and no consensus.

Everyone I've ever played with considers any rule that says "the unit can" to mean the unit and any attached ICs. If your area plays this differently, awesome. If you're playing in a tournament, ask the organizer ahead of time.

harkequin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Col_impact

It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.

No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .

It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.

Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.

Easy. By default, an IC doesn't.

col_impact wrote:
The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.

What you stated and what you quoted do not match. Either you are misquoting, mistaken, or misrepresenting, and you are not completely misquoting. Your quoted line does not state anything about special rules stating "a unit...", it address them all, nor does it not state anything about sharing or benefiting, only granting the rule. So, either you are reading more in to the sentence than it provides, or you are adding rules.

You then extends your assumptions to equate:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", to mean:
"all models in this this unit get this rule, including attached Independent Characters".

As you can see, these statements are not synonymous much less equal, therefore, this phrase in its entirety cannot possibly be a required phrase. Which means you are either reading more in to the sentence than anything actually provides, or you are adding rules.

harkequin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Col_impact

It's simple.
The unit can deepstrike on the opponents turn the D-lord is part of the unit. End of.

No special rules are conferred, problem solved, everything works RAW wrapped up in a neat little bow .



It would have to be able to do so without any benefit from Ethereal Interception. I have only stated that the D Lord does not benefit from Ethereal Interception.



Awesome, show me the rule that says an IC can't benefit from a Special rule of the unit.



Easy. By default, an IC doesn't.

Spoiler:
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.

Cool, that tells me special rules don't confer to the IC.

Now show me the rule that says an IC doesn't benefit from special rules

Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)

do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)

or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.



Additionally many people here seem to not understand that ongoing effects and special rules are different things.

Lets take blind for example.

An unit can have the special rule blind, which causes an ongoing effect.

The unit itself is not blinded.

If the unit uses its special rule on another unit, and manages to affect it- that unit is blinded- the effect of a special rule but not the special rule itself.

Example:

Some models with the blind special rule do an attack that allows blind to have an effect on the target unit. The target unit is comprised of a vanguard veteran squad and an attached IC named BOB. BOB has the special rule stealth which has the wording "if at least one model in the unit has this special rule then they may get better cover saves". Since all the models in the unit, and the unit is made of models, and the rule specifies it grants the special rule(not an ongoing effect) to the unit if at least one model has it- then all the models in the unit have it. The unit fails its test, and is blinded. The unit does not gain the blind SPECIAL RULE, they have the effect of being blinded. Not the same thing.

The IC BOB next round leaves the unit. The IC while part of the unit had its own Army List Entry(unit name) which could be referenced for its profile, special rules, wargear, etc that was separate from the rest of the models in the unit- despite being in the same unit. When the IC leaves the unit, the unit no longer has the rule "Stealth" as the IC which was conferring the special rule to them by being part of the unit is no longer in the unit. However the ONGOING effect of blind still affects the IC and the vanguard veteran squad despite them now being not in the same unit due to ONGOING effects not being special rules and having their own separate rules from special rules.




additionally does anyone believe this formation which has:
scout squads
vanguard veterain squads

and gets two special rules:
on target
and whatever else

that both the special rules go to the vanguard veterans and scout squads, in effect giving the scouts the 'on target' rule which has no affect on them whatsoever, and the vanguard veterans the "whatever else rule" which affects scout squads and has no affect on the vanguard veterans whatsover? That some of you think that this, and by default many other, formations have models in them that get special rules that reference benefits to other units is utterly ridiculous. The wording 'vanguard veteran squad' does not mean "unit" or "if at least one model has this rule than unit can do x.." It is which models in the formation get the 'on target' rule, otherwise you have scouts with the on target rule- please explain how you think that works? [remember units are given command/formation benefits- and those benefits are given to the MODELS in those units]

Neither of the rules are UNIT rules because:
A- there are no such thing as unit rules the way some of you are describing- there are not rules "units" have that affect models. There ARE rules models have which affect units however.
B- the rules do not specify they affect the unit if at least one model has the rule. This is the only way to get a "unit special rule" which is actually a special rule possessed by model(s) that affect the unit they are in through the specific wording of the special rule itself e.g. stubborn, stealth, PE, etc.


No one has to quote, or show where it says an IC doesn't get to benefit from special rules of other models in an unit it joins- it has to be shown through a general, advanced, or even the specific special rule itself that the IC has permission to benefit from the special rule. Permissive rules set. the default wording of vanguard veteran squads 'on target' in no way has any wording that supports the attached IC benefiting. If it said "the unit" you would have a RAI point, but it doesn't. If 'on target' said anything to the effect of "if an unit contains at least one model with this special rule.." or "units containing at least one model with this special rule" then RAW the IC could do it. However, there are no rules anywhere supporting the IC benefits.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules are very explicit about what happens when an IC with special rules is joined to a unit with special rules that say "a unit ..." (ie unit special rules).

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

So by default, there is no sharing of the benefits of each other's special rules. The special rules on the IC that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the joined unit and the joined units special rules that say "a unit . . ." do not extend to the IC.

What you stated and what you quoted do not match. Either you are misquoting, mistaken, or misrepresenting, and you are not completely misquoting. Your quoted line does not state anything about special rules stating "a unit...", nor does it not state anything about sharing or benefiting. So, either you are reading more in to the sentence than it provides, or you are adding rules.

You then extends your assumptions to equate:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", to mean:
"all models in this this unit get this rule, including attached Independent Characters".

As you can see, these statements are not synonymous much less equal, therefore, this phrase in its entirety cannot possibly be a required phrase. Which means you are either reading more in to the sentence than anything actually provides, or you are adding rules.

The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:


Cool, that tells me special rules don't confer to the IC.

Now show me the rule that says an IC doesn't benefit from special rules

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

I adhere to the meaning of confer in the BRB. What meaning of confer are you adhering to?

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition

blaktoof wrote:
Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)

Confer is also used with titles, degrees, or rights. So when used in context:
"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 does not grant its special rules 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 sentence in question has the subject of the "unit's special rules", not its benefits, so the special rules themselves are the ones forbidden from being granted between the two.

To put it another way, a Blood Angel Captain does not have the rule/title Stubborn conferred upon it when joining a Dark Angel Tactical Squad.

So, the combined Special Rules list for the combined unit would look something like:
* And They Shall Know No Fear
* Independent Character (Blood Angel Captain)
* Furious Charge (Blood Angel Captain)
* Grim Resolve/"Stubborn" (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
* Combat Squad (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)

It's not complete, mostly because I don't know the Blood Angel Captain's specific rules. However, when Stubborn does its job, it is not looking for or at "Marine" or "Sergeant", it is looking at "Dark Angel Tactical Squad". But Furious Charge is only looking at "Blood Angel Captain".

blaktoof wrote:
or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.

Yes, and no. Yes, we are saying that is what the confer reference says, however, we are also saying that is what the Special Rules section is expressly forbidding from happening. Stubborn does not state at any point that it gives Stubborn to any model. However, by fulfilling the conditions, the unit benefits from the special rule as directed.

blaktoof wrote:
Additionally many people here seem to not understand that ongoing effects and special rules are different things.

True, and they keep insisting an IC cannot be affected by a unit-affecting special rule without a snowflake phrase.

Special Rule is the cause. The benefit is the effect. Does that make it clear?

blaktoof wrote:
additionally does anyone believe this formation which has:
scout squads
vanguard veterain squads

and gets two special rules:
on target
and whatever else

that both the special rules go to the vanguard veterans and scout squads, in effect giving the scouts the 'on target' rule which has no affect on them whatsoever, and the vanguard veterans the "whatever else rule" which affects scout squads and has no affect on the vanguard veterans whatsover?

On Time is the other rule, and it does not refer to the Scout Squads, it is exclusive for Veteran Vanguard Squad use.

But, yes. The Scout Squad actually possess both On Time... and ...On Target. That's how the Formation Special Rules operate. Heavy Support units from a Combined Arms Detachment still possesses the actual Objective Secured Rule, it just doesn't do anything for them. What you are saying that a Marine in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad does not get Stubborn from Grim Resolve because his Sergeant has a better Leadership than he does, and that does not match the language of these rules.

blaktoof wrote:
Neither of the rules are UNIT rules because:
A- there are no such thing as unit rules the way some of you are describing- there are not rules "units" have that affect models. There ARE rules models have which affect units however.
B- the rules do not specify they affect the unit if at least one model has the rule. This is the only way to get a "unit special rule" which is actually a special rule possessed by model(s) that affect the unit they are in through the specific wording of the special rule itself e.g. stubborn, stealth, PE, etc.

Incorrect. Datasheets carry the unit's rules which are then applied (like a perfume) to the models in its unit. In addition, Formation Special Rules are specifically stated as being given to the units. The rules then state that entities receive the benefits, in the case of the above mentioned rules, they are units. I know you've fought against the idea that units cannot be targeted by rules, but everything else says otherwise.

B does not even deserve the title of red herring, it is so far off what is actually written that it does not count as a proper argument.

harkequin wrote:

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition

Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)

do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)

or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.

what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.

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.

"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

col_impact wrote:
The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?

Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.

"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."

harkequin wrote:

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition

Cool, so if I attach a Destroyer Cult Destroyer Lord to a unit of scarabs it grants Preferred Enemy and Wound/Pen re-roll to the scarabs?

I can keep detaching and attaching and each new unit has new special rules bestowed unto it.

Or did you not realize that granting or bestowing is a permanent gifting and no rule says "only while the IC remains attached"?

Seems like a broken way to play. Does your play group play that way?


I will stick with the way the BRB uses confer and adhere to "extend the benefit of the rule" which you figure out if you check out how any of the unit special rules actually play (check Stubborn for example). It may be a somewhat idiosyncratic usage of confer, but it's a game and games have idiosyncratic definitions.


Out of curiosity, does your play group require your models to actually shoot physical projectiles at one another? I just follow the BRB usage of "shoot" and roll dice.

Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)
Confer is also used with titles, degrees, or rights. So when used in context:
"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 does not grant its special rules 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 sentence in question has the subject of the "unit's special rules", not its benefits, so the special rules themselves are the ones forbidden from being granted between the two.

To put it another way, a Blood Angel Captain does not have the rule/title Stubborn conferred upon it when joining a Dark Angel Tactical Squad.

So, the combined Special Rules list for the combined unit would look something like:
* And They Shall Know No Fear
* Independent Character (Blood Angel Captain)
* Furious Charge (Blood Angel Captain)
* Grim Resolve/"Stubborn" (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)
* Combat Squad (Marine, Sergeant, and Veteran Sergeant)

It's not complete, mostly because I don't know the Blood Angel Captain's specific rules. However, when Stubborn does its job, it is not looking for or at "Marine" or "Sergeant", it is looking at "Dark Angel Tactical Squad". But Furious Charge is only looking at "Blood Angel Captain".

But units do not have special rules, models have special rules.

the combined unit is made of models. Those models have special rules for being from certain units, and certain formations/detachments.

The unit itself does not have some magical ongoing special rules that defacto benefit anything joined to it. Certain special rules have wording that benefit the unit as a whole when a model has that rule, but not the other way around.

There are just no rules supporting units having blanket special rules that are then given to everything attached.

The things you listed are all rules the models have.

again you are obviously confusing ongoing effects with special rule and trying to turn special rules into ongoing effects that an unit possess- which is not supported with any actual rules anywhere in any book.

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition

Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)

do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)

or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.

what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.

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.

"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.

Seriously what is your point?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?

Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.

"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."

The unit's special rules would include rules of the type "a unit . . ."

We are not pointing to a model's special rules.

We are also not pointing to a weapon's special rules.


We are talking about special rules of the type "a unit . . ."

blaktoof wrote:
"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. Nor does "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The usage of confer in the BRB treats confer as meaning "to extend the benefit of the rule".

No it doesn't.
Show me the definition of "confer" as per the BRB.
If you can't, we are using the english language definition

Just out of curiousity, the people who think confer does not mean benefit and keep citing OED, which states confer means to grant a benefit (often a bursary term when used in litigation)

do you believe that money magically appears when an IC joins an unit that has the special rule stubborn/stealth/etc which actually have wording in them to allow all models within the unit to benefit (if an unit contains at least one model with this rule..)

or do you actually believe confer means grant, so If Player A joins an IC with stealth to an unit without it, the IC grants the stealth special rule to the unit. Therefore it can then leave the unit and the unit has stealth at a later time, as nothing says the unit loses the USR it has been granted.

what do you think confer means, and explain it in terms of how it is used in the section on ICs and joining units with different special rules please.

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.

"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.

Seriously what is your point?

My point is you are breaking the tenents of the forum, and your argument has no merit. Which I demonstrated by showing you that how you are using confer is not how the book is using it when it references special rules, and then you look at the special rules it references. The special rules are benefiting the unit(made of models) because at least one model has it- they are not being granted to the other models(how you are using confer).


Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The quote mentions unit special rules. Those are special rules that have "a unit . . . [special rule]" or some equivalent like "a Veteran Vanguard squad . . " The rule does not discuss weapon special rules or model special rules as there is no ambiguity about whether weapon or model special rules would extend to an attached IC. A unit special rule is by definition a special rule that affects a unit (i.e. "a unit . . . [special rule]"). Do you know of any unit special rules that do not affect a unit or that do not mention "a unit . . ." or some equivalent in their special rule?

Incorrect. The quote mentions the unit's special rules, as in "special rules in possession of a unit". There is no rulebook title of "unit special rules", it is only a quick form we users may use such as calling a facial tissue Kleenex.

"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."

The unit's special rules would include rules of the type "a unit . . ."

We are not pointing to a model's special rules.

We are also not pointing to a weapon's special rules.


We are talking about special rules of the type "a unit . . ."

Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").

And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.

harkequin wrote:


Intersting fact. Words have meanings.
Confer means to grant or bestow.
Problem solved.

Seriously what is your point?

The BRB does not actually allow the unit to grant or bestow Stubborn to the IC. If it did, the IC would still have Stubborn when it detached since no rule removes the rule granted. That's what grant/bestow means.

The actual usage of confer in the BRB corresponds to "extend the benefit of the Special Rule".

If you feel otherwise, show how the rule Stubborn actually plays out when an IC joins a unit with Stubborn and then detaches without invalidating your argument.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.

actually it does.

The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.

So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.

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.

.

We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.

Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.

Yes, it does give permission to benefit.
Right here.
"the IC is considered part of the unit"

The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (which the IC is part of) may charge.

The special rule clause states
"the special rules are not conferred to the IC"

This is true. However the IC does not need the special rule.

On target says
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (including IC) may charge.


The only way people are arguing against this is by stating that "confer" does not mean "confer".

"confer" is not defined in the BRB, so we use the english language, in the english language "confer" means to grant/give/bestow.

Charistoph wrote:

Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").

And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.

The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.

harkequin wrote:

Additionally the argument about confer does nothing to address that the the rule does not give permission for the IC to benefit, or for the unit to benefit for that matter and is simply a sidetrack that is a poor attempt to say that because this thing over here doesn't mean what it means through how it works then this over here says the whole unit can benefit from this rule when it does not.

Yes, it does give permission to benefit.
Right here.
"the IC is considered part of the unit"

The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (which the IC is part of) may charge.

The special rule clause states
"the special rules are not conferred to the IC"

This is true. However the IC does not need the special rule.

On target says
The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit (including IC) may charge.


The only way people are arguing against this is by stating that "confer" does not mean "confer".

"confer" is not defined in the BRB, so we use the english language, in the english language "confer" means to grant/give/bestow.

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge