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.

Rasko wrote:

Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.

You've not properly grasped my argument on Blind then. I've never claimed that Blind is not an Ongoing Effect, I'd like you to provide a quote of me actually saying otherwise if you want to keep up that claim - thanks.

There is no "ongoing effect special rule", but Blind is a Special Rule that creates an Ongoing Effect. The Blind rule itself does not transfer from a unit which has the Blind rule itself to an IC attached - it doesn't even transfer from one weapon on a model to another weapon.

So far we can all agree on this, right?

My point - and the reason for bringing up Blind - is that e.g. On Target work the same:

There is the "who uses this?" - a unit, a weapon or a model. A unit is always composed of all the models in it, including an IC. Here the exception for Special Rules and ICs applies - it is not being confered upon the IC.
The next important part is "when is it used?" - For Blind it is used after a successful attack, for On Target it is when the unit arrives from Deep Strike reserves.

The last important part of a special rule is its effect, divided into two thinks: Who is affected? What is happening to the affected?
For Blind, the unit targeted and hit is blinded.
For On Target, a VV unit from this formation gains the permission to charge on the turn they arrive.

This last part is an Ongoing Effect in my opinion, and it is in both cases.

--

We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.

Yet it isn't in the example provided. "When a unit that contains at least one model" is a condition for when this rule can be used. It does not even remotely say when or if this rule is transfered from one model / unit to another model (IC).

Being included in "the unit" is enough to include the IC when it comes to the question of "who is affected?". None of the special rules actually confer/transfer the rule itself to another model, and quite honestly I'd say it's simply a case of bad rules writing.

Charistoph wrote:

More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.

Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll

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."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, they get Counter-Attack.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A

What exactly is your point? Counter-Attack, according to the "but Stubborns way of adressing a unit must be present" train of thought, confers to the unit and "specifically names ICs" as affected, or did I misinterpret that? To confer means to transfer, to give the rule. According to that logic, the entire unit - which includes all the models - now has Counter-Attack. Then the rule goes on to say "every model with the rule gets +1 Attacks", which is the effect. So since all the models in the unit, specifically including the IC, have the Special Rule, all models profit and gain the +1 Attack.
I'd say it's obvious this isn't how the Counter Attack rule is supposed to work, so that leads us back to the cause of what went wrong: Saying that "a unit containing at least one model" means that ICs gain the Special Rule thanks to the "IC & SR" section.

So the part where models gain +1 Attacks is the effect while the owner of the Special rule is the entire unit, and the Special Rule itself is not confered as per the "IC & SR" section, but the effect still applies to the whole unit, and only if the IC is one of the models which already had Counter-Attack it will be affected as per the "models with the rule gain +1A." condition of the effect.

Side-note: I like Counter-Attack, it seems to be pretty well-written and precise in what it is supposed to do.

Either that, or you're using a different and - at least to me - unknown meaning of "to confer something to someone", where it does not mean that you give the "something" to "someone". Could you please provide me with that other interpretation and a source for it, if that is the case? A source outside of "from the way I read this text, contextually it must mean <this or that>" - e.g. a dictionary.

*edit: fixed a typo*

If nothing else, the Datasheet says the Unit may charge, the BRB says it may not. Datasheet is the more advanced rule and thus takes precedence, allowing the unit to charge on the same turn they deep struck, assuming the only thing stopping them from charging is that the IC arrived from DS reserves.

Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-

It does not say the unit can do anything.

You are the anti RAW side, you just don't show it by failing to post any rules quotes to support your argument and insted claim the rule has wording that in reality does not exist in the rules.

As RAW means rules as written, and you purposefully choose to not use the rules as written but rather argue something that is not written I would say you are the anti RAW side, and additionaly violating the tenants of the forums which ask you to use the rules quotes to back up your stance as well as not insult other posters

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

Does it actually say Deep Strike Reserve or just Deep Strike in the book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-

It does not say the unit can do anything.

Then the Formation doesn't carry any units at all.

col_impact wrote:

nekooni wrote:

You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.

At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".

The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
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."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?

You never did define what YOU mean by "Unit Special Rule". Is it as I referenced earlier with col_impact meaning that it is a rule that only appears on a unit's datasheet, is it a rule that affects a unit, or is it what you think USR means? I'm assuming the second, but I just want to be clear.

Dok's Tools are carried by an Independent Character and only an Independent Character. An IC's unit identity is not recognized when joined another unit, so it just being "this unit may have FNP" means he would lose it as soon as he joined another unit. I have explained this before. Now turn it around for a rule that is carried by a non-IC unit and only a non-IC unit. I challenged you to consider this concept before. You did not answer it at all.

Counter-Attack includes the IC in the response, but he does not get the bonus unless he has the rule itself.

I put an emphasis on the second condition because it is just as important as the first clause in the Stubborn rule, but everyone who insists on "at least one model" completely ignores it. Do you understand now? The phrase "at least one model" is tied with "this special rule". In order for it to "confer" from unit to IC and that this phrase is the part including the IC, the IC would have to be the one possessing it. The "at least one model with this special rule" IS important, as I have explained before. This allows an IC to grant the benefit to the unit as well as the unit granting the benefit to the IC. A "two-way" rule as I have referenced it.

So, yes, the language of the required clauses is important in understanding it. But even when the spirit of this clause that they love is still in force, they will not accept it unless it carries the exact statement.

Rasko wrote:Harkequin loves to try and contest this with

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

There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.

wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.

I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.

I already gave the answer. ICs are considered to be part of the units they are joined to when they are affected by a rule.

Even the clause "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is satisfied since it requires a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" will always be "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" as long as it exists. Can you identify a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" which is not "a unit with at least one model with this special rule"? I can think of only one instance where this is even possible, and that requires that two ICs be joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad while every Veteran and the Sergeant were removed as a casualty. In their minds they are separating out the Vanguard Veteran Squad and IC as being two separate units (or in Blacktoof's case not recognizing 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' as a unit at all).

This is what I meant when I stated that they are stuck on this exact phrase being present. Even when it is fulfilled without writing it precisely, they still require the exact words and ignore anything else the rule states.

Rasko wrote:Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.

Incorrect. You are conflating Blacktoof's argument now. You are confusing what we are stating. Special Rules provide an effect. Sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is not. An IC which just left a Slow and Purposeful unit by movement would be Snap Firing unless they, too, also had Relentless or had Slow and Purposeful. And IC that joins a SnP unit by movement will be affected by it. The check for SNP is when they shoot. On Target's check is when it arrives from Deep Strike and then overrides the Deep Strike Restriction.

Now, there could be an argument for the first part of On Target, as it is not technically conditional, i.e. it doesn't say "When a unit arrives from Deep Strike" and instead just gives blanket permission to the unit. But that is not what you and others have actually been arguing at all.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.

Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"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."
We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.

Already answered above. Yes, it does.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.

More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.

Quite correct.

Rasko wrote:Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll

And the IC is part of it, part of the check, part of the pass. Where was I incorrect?

Rasko wrote: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."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A

And where was I incorrect?

Rasko wrote:On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.

Stuck on the specific words, like you say you are not. I already demonstrated how they did this, review above.

Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.

I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.

Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

Does it actually say Deep Strike Reserve or just Deep Strike in the book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

The problem you keep ignoring and misrepresent ing by saying things that are not in the rules is-

It does not say the unit can do anything.

Then the Formation doesn't carry any units at all.

col_impact wrote:

nekooni wrote:

You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.

At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".

The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
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."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?

You never did define what YOU mean by "Unit Special Rule". Is it as I referenced earlier with col_impact meaning that it is a rule that only appears on a unit's datasheet, is it a rule that affects a unit, or is it what you think USR means? I'm assuming the second, but I just want to be clear.

Dok's Tools are carried by an Independent Character and only an Independent Character. An IC's unit identity is not recognized when joined another unit, so it just being "this unit may have FNP" means he would lose it as soon as he joined another unit. I have explained this before. Now turn it around for a rule that is carried by a non-IC unit and only a non-IC unit. I challenged you to consider this concept before. You did not answer it at all.

Counter-Attack includes the IC in the response, but he does not get the bonus unless he has the rule itself.

I put an emphasis on the second condition because it is just as important as the first clause in the Stubborn rule, but everyone who insists on "at least one model" completely ignores it. Do you understand now? The phrase "at least one model" is tied with "this special rule". In order for it to "confer" from unit to IC and that this phrase is the part including the IC, the IC would have to be the one possessing it. The "at least one model with this special rule" IS important, as I have explained before. This allows an IC to grant the benefit to the unit as well as the unit granting the benefit to the IC. A "two-way" rule as I have referenced it.

So, yes, the language of the required clauses is important in understanding it. But even when the spirit of this clause that they love is still in force, they will not accept it unless it carries the exact statement.

Rasko wrote:Harkequin loves to try and contest this with

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

There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.

wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.

I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.

I already gave the answer. ICs are considered to be part of the units they are joined to when they are affected by a rule.

Even the clause "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is satisfied since it requires a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" will always be "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" as long as it exists. Can you identify a "Vanguard Veteran Squad from this Formation" which is not "a unit with at least one model with this special rule"? I can think of only one instance where this is even possible, and that requires that two ICs be joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad while every Veteran and the Sergeant were removed as a casualty. In their minds they are separating out the Vanguard Veteran Squad and IC as being two separate units (or in Blacktoof's case not recognizing 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' as a unit at all).

This is what I meant when I stated that they are stuck on this exact phrase being present. Even when it is fulfilled without writing it precisely, they still require the exact words and ignore anything else the rule states.

Rasko wrote:Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.

Incorrect. You are conflating Blacktoof's argument now. You are confusing what we are stating. Special Rules provide an effect. Sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is not. An IC which just left a Slow and Purposeful unit by movement would be Snap Firing unless they, too, also had Relentless or had Slow and Purposeful. And IC that joins a SnP unit by movement will be affected by it. The check for SNP is when they shoot. On Target's check is when it arrives from Deep Strike and then overrides the Deep Strike Restriction.

Now, there could be an argument for the first part of On Target, as it is not technically conditional, i.e. it doesn't say "When a unit arrives from Deep Strike" and instead just gives blanket permission to the unit. But that is not what you and others have actually been arguing at all.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.

Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"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."
We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.

Already answered above. Yes, it does.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.

More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.

Quite correct.

Rasko wrote:Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll

And the IC is part of it, part of the check, part of the pass. Where was I incorrect?

Rasko wrote: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."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A

And where was I incorrect?

Rasko wrote:On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.

Stuck on the specific words, like you say you are not. I already demonstrated how they did this, review above.

Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.

I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.

This response again highlights that you do not understand how the rules for units with attached ICs work in regards to special rules.

Yes people are stuck on a version of this phrase being required because the rules as written plainly state it is required to be specified for the rule to affect the IC.

Not all rules possessed by an unit purchased from a datasheet are rules that affect an unit if a model in the unit has it. Example= fleet.

If you purchase an unit from a datasheet hormagaunts, that has fleet and attach an IC to the unit the IC does not gain fleet. The hormagaunts have fleet, but the rule does not give permission for the IC to use fleet or benefit in any way.

Seriously? A super long wall of qouting just to add some lines below that?!

@All we have spoilers... whats the point of making a super quote en block just to add some lines below? I gett it when someone breaks a post up into several quotings to aderess parts of it in detail.. but just a wall? what abpout to add several thousand lines of *** just to make you sroll down even further.

There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.

wrote:

"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.

I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.

This is where you are missstepping.
The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.

I do not understand how you miss this.
The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target"
The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.

Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.

In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.

You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.

Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.

EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence.
The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.

So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.


Ps.Sorry you got dragged back in.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

nekooni wrote:

You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.

At first I did. The fact that you kept doing it after I told you numerous times indicates malicious and deceitful intent. It is at that point I call you liar.

Name-calling and making baseless accusations break YMDC's rules. Stick to arguing your case. If you have a personal problem with me you can PM or take the matter to a Mod.

Charistoph wrote:

Rasko wrote:Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

No smokescreens. None at all. Just the simple facts.

I do not rely on specific words that have never been absolutely and unconditionally referenced as the key words. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that an IC is part of that unit when a rule affects it. I do not rely on ignoring the fact that when a rule references a unit name it is actually referring to a unit that can carry out the action and not a datasheet sitting in a book. Those are the smokescreens in this argument.

You have been flat out ignoring the IC Special Rules rule.

The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")

Stubborn includes a clause that logically extends the special rule to attached models (which would include the IC).

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

This clause is not some random clause but a clause that ALL of the special rules that extend to attached ICs include. In fact, it is by virtue of this clause that the effects of the special rule of the unit are extended to the IC.

The clause is not some random verbiage. It is exactly what logically allows the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The clause logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

The clause is a part of all the special rules of the unit in the BRB that extend their effect to the attached IC.



On Target has no such specific regulatory clause whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn.

Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"

By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.

On Target has no such specific regulatory clause whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.

#######################################################################################

You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

It's fine if you want to just house rule the rule away, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

NOTE: RULE #1 REQUIRES that all users REFRAIN from PERSONAL ATTACKS at ALL TIMES.

Thanks!

harkequin wrote:


This is where you are missstepping.
The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.

I do not understand how you miss this.
The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target"
The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.

Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.

In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.

You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.

Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.

EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence.
The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.

So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.

The BRB's meaning of confer is "to extend the effect of the rule" and not "grant/bestow a rule".

You are not permitted to use a dictionary to go against the BRB usage of a word.

You are also not permitted to use a dictionary in rules discussions per YMDC rules.

Further, if you actually use the dictionary meaning of "confer" as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks.

If an IC grants/bestows a rule to a unit, the unit will still have that rule when the IC leaves. That's what grant/bestow means - the rule has been explicitly given and now a rule must explicitly remove it.


So since we are interested in forming RAW arguments then we need to stick to the usage of "confer" in the BRB.

nekooni wrote:

Rasko wrote:

Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.

You've not properly grasped my argument on Blind then. I've never claimed that Blind is not an Ongoing Effect, I'd like you to provide a quote of me actually saying otherwise if you want to keep up that claim - thanks.

There is no "ongoing effect special rule", but Blind is a Special Rule that creates an Ongoing Effect. The Blind rule itself does not transfer from a unit which has the Blind rule itself to an IC attached - it doesn't even transfer from one weapon on a model to another weapon.

So far we can all agree on this, right?

My point - and the reason for bringing up Blind - is that e.g. On Target work the same:

There is the "who uses this?" - a unit, a weapon or a model. A unit is always composed of all the models in it, including an IC. Here the exception for Special Rules and ICs applies - it is not being confered upon the IC.
The next important part is "when is it used?" - For Blind it is used after a successful attack, for On Target it is when the unit arrives from Deep Strike reserves.

The last important part of a special rule is its effect, divided into two thinks: Who is affected? What is happening to the affected?
For Blind, the unit targeted and hit is blinded.
For On Target, a VV unit from this formation gains the permission to charge on the turn they arrive.

This last part is an Ongoing Effect in my opinion, and it is in both cases.

Ok lets break this down precisely and I'll show you that you are wrong, again.
Blind: "Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule must take an Initiative test at the end of the current phase. If the test is passed, all is well – a shouted warning has caused the warriors to avert their gaze. If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn. Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test. Any model that does not have an Initiative characteristic (for example, non-Walker vehicles, buildings etc.) is unaffected by this special rule."

>Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule must take an Initiative test at the end of the current phase.
Up to this step in the Special Rule, the IC IS NOT INCLUDED. It is a special rule and like all special rules, it must have a specification or it does not effect the IC. There is no specification so far, the IC is not included.
>If the test is passed, all is well – a shouted warning has caused the warriors to avert their gaze.
>If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn.
Now, the test has failed. We look at the rule and look for a specification to see if we include the IC. Once again, why do we do this?
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>"...all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1". We find a clause that includes the IC for the effect.
>IC and the unit is effected with this ongoing effect.

EVEN IF you take the stance that "... On Target" is a an ONGOING EFFECT, it must have a clause to include IC's because it is still a special rule.
Your favorite, Blind, ALSO INCLUDES A CLAUSE FOR THE EFFECT OF THE SPECIAL RULE.
Please look at what I wrote up there... Now, I ask you to read it again. How does Blind change anything?

Since you chose to ignore this part of my previous message, I will go through it for you.
On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, therefore it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via a special rule. As you pointed out earlier, being an effect or not is meaningless because it is still a special rule. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.

You bringing up Blind does not CHANGE A THING. Blind follows the rules, like anything else.
For Blind, when the test is failed, we get an effect of "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1"
Blind ALSO FOLLOWS THE PRECEDENT OF NEEDING A CLAUSE TO EFFECT THE IC.
For '... On Target', if the unit wants to charge via a Special Rule, we look at the rule to see if there is a clause (THAT BLIND FOLLOWS) that allows us to include the IC.
>"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge..."
WHERE IS THE CLAUSE THAT EVERY UNIT SPECIAL RULE FOLLOWS?????????? You keep saying Blind, LIKE IT CHANGES ANYTHING. BLIND FOLLOWS THE RULES AS WELL.

nekooni wrote:
Being included in "the unit" is enough to include the IC when it comes to the question of "who is affected?". None of the special rules actually confer/transfer the rule itself to another model, and quite honestly I'd say it's simply a case of bad rules writing.

Now we go back to what I was saying about the precedent set in every single unit special rule in every single book and every single codex.
Unit Special Rules have a clause of some sort that specifically allow us to include any attached IC's.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
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."
And if you look at any special rule in the game, there is a specified clause for when to include the IC. This is a precedent set and followed by EVERY SPECIAL RULE IN THE GAME.
There is no specified clause that includes IC's in "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn..."

Your side's usual answer to this is to give "... On Target" special snowflake treatment and go through a mental hoop to say
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Once again, for the millionth time, the IC is part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad. No one disputes that!!!! But since this is a special rule and there is an IC in the unit, it must pass a specification, like every single other damn special rule, for when to include IC's! You cannot randomly choose to skip this step.
Why are you going through that mental hoop when that is literally not what it says in the damn rule???

Again, please look at what I wrote up there... Please acknowledge that I have addressed every single thing you wrote and did not skip anything. I have logically defended every single facet of this discussion. Address my points.

nekooni wrote:
What exactly is your point? Counter-Attack, according to the "but Stubborns way of adressing a unit must be present" train of thought, confers to the unit and "specifically names ICs" as affected, or did I misinterpret that? To confer means to transfer, to give the rule. According to that logic, the entire unit - which includes all the models - now has Counter-Attack. Then the rule goes on to say "every model with the rule gets +1 Attacks", which is the effect. So since all the models in the unit, specifically including the IC, have the Special Rule, all models profit and gain the +1 Attack.
I'd say it's obvious this isn't how the Counter Attack rule is supposed to work, so that leads us back to the cause of what went wrong: Saying that "a unit containing at least one model" means that ICs gain the Special Rule thanks to the "IC & SR" section.

So the part where models gain +1 Attacks is the effect while the owner of the Special rule is the entire unit, and the Special Rule itself is not confered as per the "IC & SR" section, but the effect still applies to the whole unit, and only if the IC is one of the models which already had Counter-Attack it will be affected as per the "models with the rule gain +1A." condition of the effect.

Side-note: I like Counter-Attack, it seems to be pretty well-written and precise in what it is supposed to do.

Either that, or you're using a different and - at least to me - unknown meaning of "to confer something to someone", where it does not mean that you give the "something" to "someone". Could you please provide me with that other interpretation and a source for it, if that is the case? A source outside of "from the way I read this text, contextually it must mean <this or that>" - e.g. a dictionary.

*edit: fixed a typo*

Sigh. What is my point? I will go through this part as well, in a step-by-step order.
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."
>"If a unit...": This special rule, so far, does not include the IC in any way.
>"If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...": The IC is now included in the special rule because it now has a clause to include IC's.
>"... and that unit is charged": The unit is charged.
>"... every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.": The special rule once again, gives us a clause to include IC's in the effect of this special rule.
This is my point. I don't know why you think Counter-Attack is the only special rule that is written well. EVERY SINGLE SPECIAL RULE IS WRITTEN IN THIS WAY.
Once again, why is "... On Target" getting special treatment and not needing a clause? The ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GO THROUGH A MENTAL HOOP OF
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Unfortunately, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE RULE.
I believe I have broken this down in such a way that anyone can follow. Please do not try to misdirect the discussion and address my points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
This is where you are missstepping.
The bold part is irrelevant. I never claimed the rules are conferred to the IC, no rule has to be conferred.

I do not understand how you miss this.
The Vanguards and scouts all have a rule called "on target"
The EFFECT of this rule is that the "vanguard Squad" may charge.

Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1.

In neither cases is the IC conferred the special rule, merely effected by it.

You can't argue one way for "on target" and another way for "blind" using the same logic. that's selective.

Either Blind can't affect attached ICs because the rule is not conferred to them, OR a rule can AFFECT a model without the model having the rule.

EDIT. The fact that blind has an ongoing affect doesn't have any relevence.
The point we are making is that, Rules can affect models who do not possess the rule.

So even though ICs are not given the rule, that does not mean they can't be affected by the rule.


Ps.Sorry you got dragged back in.

Please, please, please. Read Blind. It follows the rules like everything else. I covered it when I responded to Nekooni. Read the response but I'll include a shortened version of it here.

null wrote:"Blind works the same way,
The weapon has a special rule called "blind"
The EFFECT of this rule reduces the unit to BS 1."

That is not what it says in the rule. Not even close!!!! If you are going by memory, please re-read Blind!
Blind: "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
I am NOT being selective at all. How does Blind not follow the rules of needing a clause for the IC!!!??
It is actually the opposite! You are being selective for ".. On Target" not needing a clause! EVERY OTHER SPECIAL RULE HAS A CLAUSE FOR IC'S (INCLUDING BLIND!!!!).

I am trying to decide whether I should even bother responding to Charistoph. Unlike Harkequin and Nekooni, who have clear and comprehensible responses, Charistoph just likes to play ring-around-the-rosie and play words games.

blaktoof wrote:This response again highlights that you do not understand how the rules for units with attached ICs work in regards to special rules.

Yes people are stuck on a version of this phrase being required because the rules as written plainly state it is required to be specified for the rule to affect the IC.

No, it isn't. Not once is a specific phrase ever stated to be the requirement. Quote the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it provides the exact phrase, not a reference, the exact phrase. Quote the Stubborn rule and highlight where it states "independent characters are included". Even more insane is requiring a specific phrase that never even mentions the specifics required! I will go in to this later.

blaktoof wrote:Not all rules possessed by an unit purchased from a datasheet are rules that affect an unit if a model in the unit has it. Example= fleet.

If you purchase an unit from a datasheet hormagaunts, that has fleet and attach an IC to the unit the IC does not gain fleet. The hormagaunts have fleet, but the rule does not give permission for the IC to use fleet or benefit in any way.

Point of fact: We never once said they did. And we have said that repeatedly. We are saying the only thing that let's a unit provide Stubborn's affect to a model without Stubborn is not the "with at least one model with this special rule", but the "a unit" portion. The IC is considered for every facet and restriction of a rule as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and this does include preventing that Hormagaunt unit from using Fleet if a Tyranid Prime is in it.

Rasko wrote:I am trying to decide whether I should even bother responding to Charistoph. Unlike Harkequin and Nekooni, who have clear and comprehensible responses, Charistoph just likes to play ring-around-the-rosie and play words games.

Define what you mean by this. Or is this because I ask questions you cannot nor will not answer?

I will try to explain again why this phrase cannot be the expectation you think it is:
First, the sentence which tells us to reference Stubborn talks about conferring the rules from the units to the IC, AND the IC to the unit. This is important to remember. It is also important to remember than when an IC joins a unit, it does not operate as its own unit any more and cannot be acted upon as a unit separately from the unit is has joined.

The clause "contains at least one model with this special rule" is not referencing a model without the special rule. Therefore, it cannot be including an IC into a unit's special rule effect because it is referencing a model with this special rule, not without. So the passage of moving an effect from the unit on to a joined IC without the rule cannot be specifically found in this phrase. The only place to find this model without the rule would be in the "a unit" portion of this phrase. Why is the IC able to be referenced there? From another line which includes the IC as part of the unit for rules purposes. A unit which already possesses this rule will already have "at least one model with this special rule", so it doesn't need the IC to provide it. More importantly, unlike Fleet and Deep Strike, it also does not require all models to have it for the unit to benefit. And unlike Counter-Attack and the second part of Move Through Cover, it does not require actual possession of the rule for the effect to occur on the model.

HOWEVER, the phrase "contains at least one model with this special rule" is important when going the other way. When taking a Dark Angel Company Master (IC) with Grim Resolve (which grants Stubborn) and putting him in to a Ultramarine Tactical Squad (unit without Stubborn), this Company Master model is now the "at least one model with this special rule".

If Stubborn was just having the rule "A unit with this rule ignores negative leadership modifiers when taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests", would mean that the IC would gain this benefit if he joined this unit, but not would not be able to provide this benefit to the unit. The Tactical Squad would not benefit since it does not have the Special Rule as part of its Datasheet, only one model which is there temporarily and the rule is not granted to the rest of the unit. It is why Dok's Tools are different. It is always going to be an IC that joins other units. In order to benefit the rest of the unit, it cannot keep itself to being just "a unit with this rule".

That is why relying on this clause to allow a unit to give an IC a rule is ridiculous. You are reading it in the wrong direction. It would be like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly.

Do you understand now?

Charistoph wrote:
It would be like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly.

See what I mean by incomprehensible? I'm still trying to decide whether I should bother discussing with you.

Come on guys, I can't be the only one who read this and said "What the feth?"...

Blaktoof - you've been corrected on this often enough

Vanguard Veteran Swuad is the unit name. It is the name of the unit. When they reference VVS they reference the unit. By name.
Oh, thought I was on ignore after the last time you were proven wrong?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also the more specific rule, as it specifically allows them to DS from reserve

Te anti- RAW side just have this mythical standard that keeps changing when other examples are added. "the unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC", thus "the unit may charge" (to paraphrase a lot)

Lol. Because you say we are anti-RAW doesn't make us anti-RAW. Who is anti-RAW is what we are trying to figure out. That is not how you win an argument.
I could just say that you are anti-RAW instead. How does that further our discussion or prove that you are anti-RAW in any meaningful way?

You are barely paying attention.
"The unit may charge" does not say "unless theres an IC". Who disputes this? No one.
However, that does not mean "the unit may charge". You always skip a billion steps in this process.

On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."

>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule. Whether '... On Target' is a Unit Special Rule or an effect from Ongoing Effect Special Rule is not important. They are both still special rules.
>Because '... On Target' is a special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via a special rule or an effect from a special rule. Once again, being an effect or not is meaningless because it is still a special rule. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.

You guys love to say that the Blind 'effect' portion proves your point in how effects don't need clauses. If you read Blind, you will notice that there is a clause for the effect in
Blind: "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Vanguard Veteran Swuad is the unit name. It is the name of the unit. When they reference VVS they reference the unit. By name.
Oh, thought I was on ignore after the last time you were proven wrong?

Which brings us to this. They do reference Vet Squad by name. The IC is part of the Vet Squad. However, whenever you have a special rule and a unit with an IC (whether it is an effect or not), you go through a check. You cannot skip this check because you randomly feel like it.
"... On Target" is a special rule. Once again, whether it is an effect or not is pointless because it is still a special rule. For argument's sake lets say it is an effect.
You guys love to reference Blind. Looking at Blind shows us that the effect portion of Blind has a clause that includes IC's in its effect via
"...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
Where is the clause that includes IC's in the '... On Target' 'effect'?
It doesn't matter what the specific clause is, the important thing is that it needs a clause. For the trillionth time, why does the '... On Target' effect get to pass without having a clause? When every single other special rule in the game has a clause for when to include IC's, effects included?

Yes , there is a clause. The unit. The unit, without ecpxception, may charge. Is the IC a normal me,her of the unit, for the clause "the unit"?

Yes

That quote was at Blaktoof , who has this bizarre idea that VVS isn't the unit. Like, every time this comes up, despite being proven wrong every time, they restate as if it has any truth to it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes , there is a clause. The unit. The unit, without ecpxception, may charge. Is the IC a normal me,her of the unit, for the clause "the unit"?

Yes

That quote was at Blaktoof , who has this bizarre idea that VVS isn't the unit. Like, every time this comes up, despite being proven wrong every time, they restate as if it has any truth to it.

FINALLY, we are getting somehwere. So I'm going to assume from here on, that you agree with me until the check part then? The other people can't (or won't) even agree that it is the correct sequence of events up to that point. They either skip steps or ignore them all-together.

This next part had already been discussed but it's alright. Like I said, this thread is a merry-go-round. And we love merry-go-rounds. And so we come back to this, from a couple pages back.
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."

There is a fundemental difference between ALL the other special rules and "... On Target". There is a specified clause that is represented in SOME WAY in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
So I was asking, like before, why is "... On Target" getting special treatment in this manner? Look at ALL THE OTHER special rules in every single book and tell me how you can say "... On Target" has a clause??

Once again, like I said before, the only way to do this is if you go through a mental hoop of
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation..." = "All models (or any other 'specification' variation) in the Vanguard Veteran Squad..."
Unfortunately, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!

It isn't getting special treatment. Skyhammer, et al, are all in on this thing.

The only thing that tells you to include an IC in stubborn, for example, is the IC rule that states they are a normal member of the unit. You MUST use this rule, otherwise stubborn would not stop an ICs ld being reduced

Yet for some reason this rule suddenly isn't good enough once "only" the unit - which is at least as good as "one model" in the unit - is specified.

Anyway. This is 19 pages. You cannot convince me as nothing. You have said is new. Literally,,nothing. You've just used more caps to do it.

You do not address a single thing but that's ok. It isn't surprising to me after you resorted to saying "the anti-RAW side" to win an argument.
I dont' give a gak about convincing you one way or the other. You are going to think whatever the hell you want in the end anyway, whether it is right or wrong.
I am merely pointing out how you are being illogical.

Perhaps YMDC is the wrong place for you if you don't wish to discuss the rules.

I'm only here for the merry-go-round.

WEeeeeeEEEEeeeEEEE~~~~~

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isn't getting special treatment. Skyhammer, et al, are all in on this thing.

The only thing that tells you to include an IC in stubborn, for example, is the IC rule that states they are a normal member of the unit. You MUST use this rule, otherwise stubborn would not stop an ICs ld being reduced

Yet for some reason this rule suddenly isn't good enough once "only" the unit - which is at least as good as "one model" in the unit - is specified.

Anyway. This is 19 pages. You cannot convince me as nothing. You have said is new. Literally,,nothing. You've just used more caps to do it.

The IC Special Rules rule requires you to definitively point to something that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubburn)" in order to allow the special rules of the unit to extend their benefit to joined ICs.

The IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that there is no rule sharing by default between the special rules of the unit and the special rules of the attached IC.

The burden is on you to definitively point to something in On Targt that is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubburn)". If you cannot, then the benefit of On Target do not extend to the joined IC. You have not met the requirement.

We don't need to convince you. You need to convince us (by making a definitive case). The burden is on you.

The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.

Rasko- I actually addressed your argument entire. You then spent that entire post ignoring the tenets. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.

So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC.

So are we done here?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.

Rasko- I actually addressed your argument entire. You then spent that entire post ignoring the tenets. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.

Honestly at this point, I can't tell if you are trolling me or being wilfully obtuse.

The IC is normally a member of the squad for all rules purposes. Is it sounding familiar so far???
We have repeated this fact over and over again. It is not in contention.

The only time it is not the case is in special rules. Why?
"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."

How have I pretended the 'normal member' rule doesn't exist?
When it is you, in fact, who is pretending that
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules..."
doesn't exit...

Stubborn does not use the 'normal member' rule in any way, shape, or form. Where are you getting this from? More selective reading?
Read the ability again. Stubborn has a clause to include IC's. How did it require the use of the 'normal member' rule?

Can safely add you to the discredited pile.

CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...

so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :

IF condition 1/2/3 =true then the unit ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows the unit ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...

so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.

The first one is from stubborn. how exactly is a IC here included? Only by treating him as a full member of the unit.
That this ork dok thing i guess. but again. the IC model is treated as a full member of the unit.
Then Blind.. what surprise. again. IC needs to be counted as a member of the unit.
On target does clearly state that the VVS is allowed to do something. The only difference her is that ther is no line like " while the VVS is alive.. " or any other line like this because its not needed. Only a Unit that is in deep strike reserve is allowed to deep strike. so no need for further conditions.

So in each of this cases we see that unless the IC/ its model is threaten as a part of his unit. That exactly is why stubborn and all these other rules allow that a IC benefits from a unit's special rule. or depending on exact wording a unit can benefit of special rules that a IC carries. So the upper part of the IC rules box that handles special rules and the lower part that tells us that a IC is a full member for all rule purposes actually work together. they are not a contradiction or a super exception. they work hand in hand.

When a Special rule targets a Unit as a whole. either by using the term "unit" or by using something like " all models in the unit" a IC is included. I have yet not seen any special rule that says " this includes a IC" ... with this i may be wrong but! the majority of Special rules that allow rule sharing / benefiting are worded in the pattern i mentioned some sentences above.


The second "problem " that is always mentioned is that only the units of a Formation can use it's special rules. comand bennefits and such. Even this rule is not violated.

The moment a IC an unit is belongs to this unit. if we count the units that are active on the table then we notice that this unit count is reduced by 1(one) the moment a IC joins a unit. so rule wise the IC unit stops to exist. Thus we don't have a unit that is not from the formation.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The same specificity as in stubborn, actually . which requires the use of the "normal member..." Rule you like to pretend doesn't exist otherwise stubborn doesn't work either.

So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC.

So are we done here?

Yes, you're done here have been for 18'pages.

VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.

Rasko - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, you're done here have been for 18'pages.

VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.

Rasko - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.

I love the way you argue your point. It is actually quite hilarious. _ghost_, Charistoph (even if he is incomprehensible a lot of the time), and the rest, even if I don't agree with them, we can at least attempt to have a logical discussion about the matter.

Here, let me show you how you do it.

nosferatu1001 - feel free not to continue, just don't break rule one again, please. You just get ignored. Like now.
Your anti-RAW side arguments have been proven wrong. Can safely add you to the discredited pile.

Do you see how uttery rediculous you sound? Well... You probably don't.

 _ghost_ wrote:
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...

so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :

IF condition 1/2/3 =true then the unit ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows the unit ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...

so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.

If everything here was true. You would be completely correct. Once again, I don't understand why you are selectively reading the rule when that is not what it says!

CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "...If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn..."
CLAUSE ? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule...

so when we have any given rule we have either a syntax like this :

IF condition 1/2/3 =true then A unit that contains at least one model ...
IF condition 1/2/3 =true then all models of the unit ...
Special rule allows A unit that contains at least one model ...
Special rule allows all models in the unit...

 _ghost_ wrote:
so here we are. i marked the conditions in green and the benefiting elements in red.
The first one is from stubborn. how exactly is a IC here included? Only by treating him as a full member of the unit.

How exactly is the IC included in all your examples. A clause includes him in the form of "A unit that contains at least one model ..." or "all models in the unit...". Never, is it ever just "a unit" like you say it is.

 _ghost_ wrote:
That this ork dok thing i guess. but again. the IC model is treated as a full member of the unit.

A clause includes him in the form of "all models of the unit ...".

 _ghost_ wrote:
Then Blind.. what surprise. again. IC needs to be counted as a member of the unit.

You are right. What a surprise. again. The IC is counted as a member of the unit via a clause in the form of "all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill..."

 _ghost_ wrote:
On target does clearly state that the VVS is allowed to do something. The only difference her is that ther is no line like " while the VVS is alive.. " or any other line like this because its not needed. Only a Unit that is in deep strike reserve is allowed to deep strike. so no need for further conditions.

Yes. On Target clearly does allow VVS to do something. However, On Target is a special rule. The IC does not need to have a special rule to benefit from the special rule. That is not what I'm saying. Whether the special rule is a unit special rule or an effect that targets the unt from a special rule is also meaningless. It is still a special rule (the Blind effect follows this precedent).

 _ghost_ wrote:
So in each of this cases we see that unless the IC/ its model is threaten as a part of his unit. That exactly is why stubborn and all these other rules allow that a IC benefits from a unit's special rule. or depending on exact wording a unit can benefit of special rules that a IC carries. So the upper part of the IC rules box that handles special rules and the lower part that tells us that a IC is a full member for all rule purposes actually work together. they are not a contradiction or a super exception. they work hand in hand.

You are right. The IC is a full member for all rule purposes. EXCEPT for special rules. "... On Target" did not pass the specification check. The only way to do that is going through a mental hoop.

 _ghost_ wrote:
When a Special rule targets a Unit as a whole. either by using the term "unit" or by using something like " all models in the unit" a IC is included. I have yet not seen any special rule that says " this includes a IC" ... with this i may be wrong but! the majority of Special rules that allow rule sharing / benefiting are worded in the pattern i mentioned some sentences above.

When the BRB wants to include the IC in a special rule, they make it EXCEEDINGly clear in the form of a clause. You guys are always so stuck on the fact that the rule doesn't say "this includes a IC". It doesnt say that. It is not contested. It doesn't have to, it just needs to be "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". No matter how much you guys like to pretend it does, "... On Target" does not have a specification.

 _ghost_ wrote:
The second "problem " that is always mentioned is that only the units of a Formation can use it's special rules. comand bennefits and such. Even this rule is not violated.

The moment a IC an unit is belongs to this unit. if we count the units that are active on the table then we notice that this unit count is reduced by 1(one) the moment a IC joins a unit. so rule wise the IC unit stops to exist. Thus we don't have a unit that is not from the formation.

There is no problem here. Where are you getting this idea from?
Once again, the IC is a member of the VVS for all rules purposes. I have never contested this. Please stop saying I did. When the IC joins the unit, you are completely correct, it is still a unit from the formation. I have never contested this. Please stop saying I did. However, just because the IC considered a part of the unit does not mean you can randomly skip
-"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 IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply joining a unit does not allow the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The default for an IC joined to a unit is as expressed below.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yes, you're done here have been for 18'pages.

VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.

So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.

Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.

So we are done here.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It would be like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly.

See what I mean by incomprehensible? I'm still trying to decide whether I should bother discussing with you.

Come on guys, I can't be the only one who read this and said "What the feth?"...

So, you get confused by one analogy and the rest of the post is confusing as a result? Is that what you are saying? Or that you just refuse to address it at all?

Here is the explanation of this analogy:

Bricks lying on the ground are heavy and do not float, much less fly.

Balloons are generally not heavy, tend to not be dense and can float quite easily, and if filled with something really light like Helium or Hydrogen, they fly off in to the air.

Tying a balloon to heavy brick that does not fly and is lying on the ground will generally keep the balloon down, and is a method in attempting to keep the balloon on the ground. This is the opposite of flying.

So, too, relying on a clause that says "contains at least one model with this special rule" to indicate that a unit passes a rule's benefit to a visiting IC when it says nothing about giving anything nor talking directly about the IC we are looking to pass the rule's benefit to, is "like relying on bricks lying on the ground to get your balloon to fly."

You are relying on a something to do something which is doing the exact opposite of what of what it actually does.

The closest thing that can represent an IC without a special rule and can be found in, "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is "a unit", and only "a unit". It sure isn't in any other part of this statement. So, either an IC without this special rule is not included, or the simple clause of "a unit" without any other requirements is what is including the IC.

The IC Special Rule states that Stubborn does indeed include the IC with the unit in the benefit, so it is the latter clause of "a unit" is all that is required. This then requires other clauses to exclude the IC now that it has been included, such as Counter-Attack's "models with this rule" or Fleet's "with all models with this rule".

There is no other way that the language works in this case without a specific reference otherwise to translate it in to something beyond the regular english language. The IC Special Rules section does not carry this specific reference to translate this phrase in to a back and forth, it only references Stubborn which also does not provide this translation, either.

col_impact wrote:So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.

Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.

So we are done here.

I just did. Disprove it.