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.

The Grey Knights have Shrouding.

The IC does not.

They join together...okay...now you have to try and shoot the unit. You can't specifically target the IC, so you target the Grey Knight squad...who happen to have...SHROUDING.

There we go.

ductvader wrote:The Grey Knights have Shrouding.

The IC does not.

They join together...okay...now you have to try and shoot the unit. You can't specifically target the IC, so you target the Grey Knight squad...who happen to have...SHROUDING.

There we go.

Except it is no longer a grey knight unit...

I've noticed that the issue seems to be hanging on the "Special Rule" paragraph on pg 48 in the BrB, concerning how unit special rules interact when an IC joins a unit which specifically states that in most situations, a special rule is lost when an IC without the special rule joins a unit with the special rule. The entry also includes a reference to the USB rules starting a pg 74, which states that special rules found in a codex take precedence over rules listed in the BRB and that only rules with an asterisk (*) are in fact lost when an IC joins a unit and one or the other does not have the special rule.

So, let's look at Shrouding, DH codex, pg 8. The key sentence in the rules for Shrouding is, "each time an enemy unit fires at a unit of Grey Knights ..." the effect of Should is applied.

So, the questions that follow are:

Is a unit of Grey Knights still a unit of Grey Knights when an IC joins them?

Does an IC without Shrouding cause Shroud to be negated when the IC joins a unit with Shrouding?

The answer to the first question seems to be yes. A unit of Grey Knights is still a unit of Grey Knights, but it is now a complex unit of Grey Knights with an IC.

The answer to the second question seems to be no. While per the BRB, an IC cancels any special rule the IC does not have that does not specifically state otherwise, and Shrouding does not state otherwise, the codex does trump the rulebook, and Shrouding is a special rule conferred to Grey Knights as a unit (no asterisk).

Based on the USR section of the BRB as well as the DH FAQ, an IC that joins a unit of Grey Knights will benefit from Shrouding, Fearless, and Rites of Exorcism, yet will not benefit from Aegis at all, and will only benefit from Deep Strike or True Grit if the IC has a similar special rule.

SJ

Except you have entirely conflated "Unit of GK " to fit your deefinition, without any cause.

A unit of GK which then has an IC attached is NOT A UNIT OF GK - it is a UNit of (GK + IC)

SO, when you get to the Shrouding rule, you ask if the unit you are attacking is a unit of GK. The answer is, oddly enough, no - it is partly GK, but not entirely. As such Shrouding does not apply.

Very, very, very simple, follows the rules of language *and* the fluff

And has been demonstrated the rules of language is important in a non-inclusive ruleset.

First off I'm surprised this issue has not cropped up more often as even in an all Daemonhunter army you can have a inquistor with a unit of grey knights if you wanted.

I would suggest that the shrouding is sort of like a Individual Cloak (like Predator). While the unit might still have it if your in a group of Predators and a random guy you would still see the regular guy and shoot at him. You might hit the people you cannot see as well as the guy.

So I would suggest (knowing it will not be taken by RAW purests) that if you can see the IC with LOS and the IC is in range then you can target the unit as nothing in the rules states the IC stops being part of the unit unless he moves away from them. So you roll for Shrouding for the unit but the IC acts as normal. You can target them either way but only by working out which ones your see.

I know this is not in the book, This is a house rule and how I'm going to suggest we play this in my group.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you have entirely conflated "Unit of GK " to fit your deefinition, without any cause.

Which isn't exactly the same thing you're doing in the opposite direction?

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you have entirely conflated "Unit of GK " to fit your deefinition, without any cause.

Which isn't exactly the same thing you're doing in the opposite direction?

Oddly enough, no, as mine is at least based in language. Yours is entirely made up.

A unit of Orks with a Human (however short lived that human may be) is NOT an Ork unit. It really, really isn't - either mathematically or linguistically. It is a unit of [Orks + Human] - in the same way as a unit of GK with a non-GK IC is no longer a unit of GK, it is a unit of [GK + non-GK IC]. Any rules which apply to units of [X] no lnoger apply when you have a unit of [X+Y] instead.

This is as plain as day, and so stunningly obvious that to suggest otherwise requires making "unit" have a completely unique definition, just for 40k. Luckily, no such defninition exists within the ruleset - so you fall back on the English language, your only source for something not internally defined. In the same way as you dont expect "the" to be defined in 40k, they didnt define unit to mean what you are saying - they left it as is.

Does that make it any clearer?

I hate to bring up the rules for posting in YMTC, but if it was that obvious would there be any discussion on the subject?

Monster Rain wrote:I hate to bring up the rules for posting in YMTC, but if it was that obvious would there be any discussion on the subject?

It simply shows how good or bad the language skill of your average 40k gamer is. Besides it's common knowledge that no opinion is too hilarious to be discussed online by somebody fighting for it.

And, to comment on an earlier post of yours, claiming I have no clue about the English language for no reason is makes you uncivil indeed.

Monster Rain wrote:I hate to bring up the rules for posting in YMTC, but if it was that obvious would there be any discussion on the subject?

Yes: just because something is discussed does not make it unclear, just that there is a gap in the understanding of language. I have explained this a couple of times but usually from the obverse position, btw.

So you dont disagree any longer? You finally accept that 40k is a non-inclusive ruleset and that a bunch of grapes with an orange welded on really isnt a bunch of grapes any longer? Or that atrocious metaphors involving fruit and bins that have no relation (i.e. they dont provide a close working model for the situation and therefore arent useful, before you complain about pedantism again. Which you got wrong last time, by the way....I was pointing out your "bin" was not reliant on the unit forits existence, unlike shrouding) to the task at hand really, really dont help?

Quick question - assuming you still stick to your guns and believe a unit of (X) remains a unit of (X) no matter what else is added to it - at which point does it become the other unit? Or does it exist simultaneously as both (or more!) units?

For example - using your logic here - a unit of 10GK+nonGK IC is a GK Unit. It isn't, but just for fun assume your position is true.

What about 1GK Terminator and 2 non-GK ICs? IS is still a GK unit? Or is it now type of unit(non-GK IC) ? What about a GK IC in a unit of IG? Is it both a unit of a IG and a GK unit? In case you cant guess this is reductio ad absurdum, to show you that not only does it not make sense linguistically but mathematically it is complete hogwash as well.

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

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

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

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

The laws of language I posted are immutable. We can keep discussing it if people disagree, as that is what this forum is for. However, the discussion can't go past what I have posted (or Nos, and several others) unless you can somehow invalidate the way languages are written.

If you can't, then you must either accept the law, or disagree with the intent and argue it on the grounds of intent / how you would play it.

There's really no in-between because the English language and the laws of mathematics and linguistic expression can't be broken to satisfy a misunderstanding.

Nitewolf:

Saying you had "no clue" about the English language is a bit of a stretch. We disagreed on the deifinition of the term metaphor, and if I recall it was you that may have originally questioned someone's english comprehension.

In closing, I'd like to point out that I didn't bring up the infamous(yet delicious) metaphor. Also, let's calm down a bit, shall we? The seriousness with which this all being taken is a bit much. My lil' toy soldiers will be played according to what I believe to be RAW and\or RAI. Zain's case is pretty solid, but I wonder if you could come up with a diagram showing that all the A's are generating a field, and the effect that the addition of a B would have on said field?

Monster Rain wrote:Zain's case is pretty solid, but I wonder if you could come up with a diagram showing that all the A's are generating a field, and the effect that the addition of a B would have on said field?

As long as you'll admit that the linguistic case is solid, I'm more than happy to discuss this on a 'fluff/sci-fi reasoning' side. As Nosferatu pointed out - I believe the fluff supports the linguistic conclusion, and as such RAW = RAI.

So, sci-fi style. A squad must stay in coherency to be a squad. The squad must stay in communication and mind each other. This is why RAW=RAI for infiltrators mean that people who are paying attention to infiltrators can't take some big nasty terminator along who can't infiltrate because douche-bag Termie is crunching through branches and weeds and making all these mechanical noises. Hence, if infiltrators can't 'hide' someone who can't do what they can do. The rock-solid psyker shrouding is awesome, until they get some untrained, un-initiated 'normal' marine they have to have imbedded and try to perform a squad oriented function. Nothing in the shrouding suggests to me that even someone following along within range wouldn't upset this balance. If he was walking through it and around it - the whole squad easier to see as the mirage surrounding them is interrupted just like tossing water on the predator. Even Arnold knows that.

In science non-fiction warfare, a squad of highly trained special operators may be able to hide their presence or mask it with shapes and colors and movements that are ambiguous against a background and cut down on the V shapes that give away their position. If you wanted to document this on a raid on an enemy compound and you sent a photo journalist along with them, could they maintain that same night-fighting stealth? Probably not.

I never said you didn't have a solid case Zain, I just disagreed. And still do, to a point. I don't know if the laws of linguistics translate directly to a Space Fantasy context.

I think I'll check out INAT and see what Yakface thinks about it...

Monster Rain wrote:I never said you didn't have a solid case Zain, I just disagreed. And still do, to a point. I don't know if the laws of linguistics translate directly to a Space Fantasy context.

I think I'll check out INAT and see what Yakface thinks about it...

And Yakface's opinion is more important than the rules as written because...

Because the INAT is at least a standardized method of play for when something is even a little bit unclear.

Monster Rain wrote:Because the INAT is at least a standardized method of play for when something is even a little bit unclear.

Well, it is a standardised answer, not sure about the method part.

Monster Rain wrote:Because the INAT is at least a standardized method of play for when something is even a little bit unclear.

If it were internally consistent and didn't disguise Rules Changes as "Clarification", I would agree.

I don't agree with everything in it either, but it's a useful tool.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Monster Rain - you do realise the game is written in English, and is not an inclusive ruleset dont you?

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

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

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

Look, I don't want to be too involved with this and so I really want to be as polite as possible. Nosferatu1001, I believe your definition of "Unit" makes a lot of sense in the dictionary sense. That's well and good. I think the problem is it isn't the definition in the demented, often vague 40k universe. But in this case, I believe 5e makes it clear, ICs can *join* a specific *unit* thus creating one unit that can only be shot at as a whole. But even if you don't like that definition of unit the fact of the matter remains, if a non DH IC joins a group of GKs, because the majority of the unit is GK, they will get that shrouding ability. And it isn't useless at all. I had some nasty ordinance monstrosity trying to shoot my GKs with Kantor and he kept failing the shrouding test--thank goodness. It doesn't always help, but when it does, it is pretty nice.

But take my thoughts for what they are. A noob's thoughts based on the outcome of this very scenario at a tournament. The Tourney master, whose been playing 40k for twenty some years and owns a games store that host 'ard boyz for the area had no hesitation. The IC gets the shrouding.

Still deosnt alter the actual rules, which is that it requires a Grey Knight Unit. NOWHERE in the rulebook does it define "X is this type of unit if the majority of th eunit are Y" therefore you go off the language in the book. Your "fact" is nothing of the sort - you have simply "made stuff up".

A non-GK IC joining a GK unit makes the unit [GK+non-GK], is therefore NOT a GK-unit and Shrouding, for the ENTIRE unit, is lost.

Hmmm... well i would like to interject that when playing orks i have a Boyz squad. My boyz squad contains a Nob... but it is still a Boyz squad. It is not made entirely of boyz but the squad itself is a boyz squad and having the nob does not change this. Alternatively I also run with a Nob squad which has been joined by a warboss. This is still called a Nob squad. Having the warboss join does not mean that my squad is now called a warboss squad... or a Nob +1 squad... its still just a Nob squad.

First of all, I agree with Nos, if you add a non-GK IC into a unit of GK, you no longer have a "unit of GK", you have a unit of GK plus something else. Using that apples and oranges example. IF I were to buy taht barrel of "apples", would I get a barrel of apples or would I get a barrel of apples plus an orange? No. See, it's no longer a barrel of apples, so can't be advertised as such, etc etc. So anything that applies to a 'barrel of apples' (aka 'unit of Grey Knights') does not apply once you introduce a foreign element.

Mike Leon wrote:Inquisitors are Fearless and, like all Fearless ICs, do not convey this ability to units they join.
If an Inquisitor joins a unit of space marines with ATSKNF, he is still Fearless, however the space marines can still break and he would have to fall back with them if he is in the unit. I would have to check the next part to be sure, but I believe he can act normally after they rally because the ATSKNF rule says "the unit" may act normally and "the unit" includes any ICs joined to the unit.

Just had to touch on this statement.
1. Inquisitors are not Fearless. Inq LORDS have Iron Will, and can choose to pass or fail. They also have a mandatory retinue, making it hard to join a unit of Marines. Should their retinue die, and the Inq Lord then join a unit, then yes, his Iron Will can be used to choose to pass or fail.

2. Elite Inquisitors, who are not required to have a retinue, do not have Iron Will, Fearless or any special Morale rules. If one of them were to join your SM squad, no more ATSKNF. Run away means run away. Below half, no stopping.

shade1986 wrote:Hmmm... well i would like to interject that when playing orks i have a Boyz squad. My boyz squad contains a Nob... but it is still a Boyz squad. It is not made entirely of boyz but the squad itself is a boyz squad and having the nob does not change this. Alternatively I also run with a Nob squad which has been joined by a warboss. This is still called a Nob squad. Having the warboss join does not mean that my squad is now called a warboss squad... or a Nob +1 squad... its still just a Nob squad.

1) The nob is a unit upgrade, and is therefore a "Boy", just a Nob "boy"
2) Imprecise language; you cannot point to a rule stating this, however I *can* prove that it is not a Nob unit anylonger, in the exact same way as above.

In a permissive ruleset YOU Must provide a *rule* which allows you to do what you want to do. In the absence of permission you may not.

A GK Unit joined by a non-GK IC is NOT a GK unit.

Then an independent character joined to a unit is no long an independent character...

it is an IC+unit...therefore it must not get any of the special rules that go with it...

Incorrect, please point to a rule that shows this. Or else was it hot air.

Your "conclusion" does not follow frmo the easily proven [GK+non-GK] /= [GK]

My point was simply that each unit within a complex unit maintains their special rules.

Except when that UNIT requires the UNIT to be a certain UNIT.

Then it isnt true. Your point also lacks rules, which is....lacking ina rules dforum.

Nevermind...I can see from the comments on this page that this conversation will go nowhere...

If you provided some form of rules it would be a rules discussion, otherwise it is simply a mess of proposed houserules.