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.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not 100% convinced that the IC loses it's "unit-hood".

The IC + unit is referred to as a "combined unit" on page 48.

Right. The Combined Unit does not have the AoF rule.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not 100% convinced that the IC loses it's "unit-hood".

The IC + unit is referred to as a "combined unit" on page 48.

Right. The Combined Unit does not have the AoF rule.

But the IC does.
What's stopping the IC from activating the rule she has?

Yonush wrote:So as we agree that the cannoness doest lose AoF, the unit can be said to have AoF as the cannoness is part of the unit. Do you see my logic?

I see your logic and it is specifically contradicted by P48. The unit does not have AoF; the Canoness model does. Special rules do not transfer to the unit, unless specifically indicated, per P48. The rule for AoF requires the UNIT to have the rule for it to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not 100% convinced that the IC loses it's "unit-hood".

The IC + unit is referred to as a "combined unit" on page 48.

Right. The Combined Unit does not have the AoF rule.

But the IC does.
What's stopping the IC from activating the rule she has?

Because the IC is not a unit anymore, she is a model in a combined unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not 100% convinced that the IC loses it's "unit-hood".

The IC + unit is referred to as a "combined unit" on page 48.

Right. The Combined Unit does not have the AoF rule.

But the IC does.
What's stopping the IC from activating the rule she has?

Let's enumerate the possibilities here:

Individuals:
1) IC w/ AoF rule, on her own, is a "faithful" unit and can use Acts of Faith.
2) IC w/o AoF rule, on her own, cannot use Acts of Faith.
3) Unit w/ AoF rule, on their own, is a "faithful" unit and can use Acts of Faith.
4) Unit w/o AoF rule, on their own, cannot use Acts of Faith.

Combinations:
1 + 2) IC 1 has AoF, IC 2 does not, so the unit does not, cannot use Acts of Faith.
1 + 3) IC and Unit have AoF, can use Acts of Faith and the entire unit benefits from the Acts.
1 + 4) IC has AoF, unit does not, cannot use Acts of Faith.
2 + 3) IC does not have AoF, unit does. Unit can use AoF, but the IC does not get any benefits.
2 + 4) Nobody has AoF.
3 + 4) Doesn't make sense.

So you're saying the IC is no longer a unit. I can't find anything supporting that. Can you?

If an IC is a unit by herself, how could she possibly still be a unit by herself when she's joined with another unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More clearly (I hope):

IC - A Unit
Celestians - A Unit
IC + Celestians - A Unit

IC + Celestians means necessarily that the IC is no longer a unit by herself. She is part of the unit she joined.

IC + Celestians is a combined unit, per P48.

So what are the special properties of a "combined unit" that would allow the IC to continue to use her AoF if the combined unit didn't have that rule?

The fact that the IC unit has the AoF rule and there's no restriction on it.

Edit: All I'm saying is that you're removing the unit-ness without a rule saying to.

I think the hang up here is that the only 2 IC Acts both say "The IC and their squad".
If it just said the "unit" then the argument could be made that since (for example) Battle Sisters are not "the unit" (the "unit" in this case is the Canoness) they would not benefit.
My claim is due to the wording of "IC's and AoFs", the Canoness can still use her power, but it would not affect a unit without AoF.

Happyjew wrote:
My claim is due to the wording of "IC's and AoFs", the Canoness can still use her power, but it would not affect a unit without AoF.

From the wording in this thread, Passion would disagree with you.

I think the SoB rules are too sloppily written to come to a unanimous decision on this. So if you can convince your opponent that it means you can Passion your Conclave, more power to you. I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Amerikon wrote:I think the SoB rules are too sloppily written to come to a unanimous decision on this. So if you can convince your opponent that it means you can Passion your Conclave, more power to you. I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Heck, I'd let him do it just because he wasted the points to pull off the combo when there are much better options.

I'm not arguing because I play Sisters -I've never actually seen a sisters model IRL. I just think that an IC losing his unitness has farther reaching implications than just AoF. Itd be something interesting to explore.

HappyJew wrote:I think the hang up here is that the only 2 IC Acts both say "The IC and their squad".
If it just said the "unit" then the argument could be made that since (for example) Battle Sisters are not "the unit" (the "unit" in this case is the Canoness) they would not benefit.
My claim is due to the wording of "IC's and AoFs", the Canoness can still use her power, but it would not affect a unit without AoF.

Happy here is the exact wording of "The Passion"

This Act of Faith is used in the Assault phase. If successful, the Cannoness and her unit recieve +1 Inititive and the Perferred Enemy special rule until the end of the Assault Phase.

The key words in the power is and her unit. These words, mean that it doesn't matter who her unit is, they recieve the benifit of the +1I and PE. If it didn't say and her unit then it would only affect other units with the Act of Faith rule. Thats my arguement on why it should work.

pretre wrote:

Amerikon wrote:I think the SoB rules are too sloppily written to come to a unanimous decision on this. So if you can convince your opponent that it means you can Passion your Conclave, more power to you. I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Heck, I'd let him do it just because he wasted the points to pull off the combo when there are much better options.

rigeld2 has stated, more succinctly(rigeld2) than I could, as to why IMO the Cannoness should be allowed to use The Passion while attached to a Battle Conclave.

As a side, someone asked why. Stubborn, Prefered enemy, and all models get their attacks (even Crusaiders and Arco's) vs MeQ or LC TeQ imo is sexy. It be more sexy if the rerolls could happen during the other player turn as well but what can you do.

Edit: I don't play SoB either, a friend does, and we were having a discussion as to this. He said it didn't work, I disagree based on how I read the rules, so I brought it here.

Yonush wrote:rigeld2 has stated, more succescently than I could, as to why IMO the Cannoness should be allowed to use The Passion while attached to a Battle Conclave.

succinctly (sorry, really bothered my OCD for some reason) Thanks :-)

Yonush, I know what the power says. I also know that a few pages earlier, under IC's and Acts of Faith, if a unit does not have the Actof Faith special rule, they do not benefit from the IC's Act. As it is like rigeld, I've never seen a SoB model (even in packaging), and I don't know know anyone irl who plays them.

Happyjew wrote:Yonush, I know what the power says. I also know that a few pages earlier, under IC's and Acts of Faith, if a unit does not have the Actof Faith special rule, they do not benefit from the IC's Act. As it is like rigeld, I've never seen a SoB model (even in packaging), and I don't know know anyone irl who plays them.

Specific > General. In general, AoF and ICs interact one way. Specifically, Passion says differently.

rigeld, so I understand this:
Do you agree that a unit without Acts of Faith does not benefit from an IC's Act (in general)?
If yes, then the whole system is broken, as the only Acts that IC's have (if they have any) both specify the IC and their unit. So how exactly is one more specific than the other?

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, so I understand this:
Do you agree that a unit without Acts of Faith does not benefit from an IC's Act (in general)?
If yes, then the whole system is broken, as the only Acts that IC's have (if they have any) both specify the IC and their unit. So how exactly is one more specific than the other?

Yes, thats essentially what I'm saying.
A unit with AoF will benefit from an ICs act in general.
A unit without AoF will not benefit in general.

The Passion states IC and the unit... Which overrides the 2nd general statement.
If all of the IC acts are worded the same way, then GW put in redundant rules.
I don't see breakage.

Yonush wrote:

HappyJew wrote:I think the hang up here is that the only 2 IC Acts both say "The IC and their squad".
If it just said the "unit" then the argument could be made that since (for example) Battle Sisters are not "the unit" (the "unit" in this case is the Canoness) they would not benefit.
My claim is due to the wording of "IC's and AoFs", the Canoness can still use her power, but it would not affect a unit without AoF.

Happy here is the exact wording of "The Passion"

This Act of Faith is used in the Assault phase. If successful, the Cannoness and her unit recieve +1 Inititive and the Perferred Enemy special rule until the end of the Assault Phase.

The key words in the power is and her unit. These words, mean that it doesn't matter who her unit is, they recieve the benifit of the +1I and PE. If it didn't say and her unit then it would only affect other units with the Act of Faith rule. Thats my arguement on why it should work.

I'm personally of the opinion that this is just sloppy writing. However, if we're going to take it as literal truth then it still doesn't change anything. The real debate is whether or not a faithful IC can use her Act while joined to a non-faithful unit.

Amerikon wrote: The real debate is whether or not a faithful IC can use her Act while joined to a non-faithful unit.

Agreed. And for it not to be able to, the IC has to no longer be a unit.
I don't see anything saying that.
DoW deployment calls it 2 units.
Combined Unit on page 48.
Anything supporting the removal of unit status?

rigeld, so the only things that the "no benefit" rule applies to doesn't apply?
Either:
a) they don't benefit from IC's Acts (per the rules), or,
b) they benefit from the IC's Acts (per the rules)

I agree that specific trumps general, however, this isn't exactly the case here. The rule only covers 2 powers, which both state the IC and their unit.

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, so the only things that the "no benefit" rule applies to doesn't apply?
Either:
a) they don't benefit from IC's Acts (per the rules), or,
b) they benefit from the IC's Acts (per the rules)

I agree that specific trumps general, however, this isn't exactly the case here. The rule only covers 2 powers, which both state the IC and their unit.

Correct. It's a redundant, useless rule. Hardly the only one.

Edit: plus this leaves the door open for other Acts from Forgeworld or WD.

Combined unit means it is one unit. Hence the whole thing about joining a unit on 48, losing rules on 48 and which rules transfer on 74.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also combined is only used in the coherency bullet to indicate they are one unit.

It's one unit that is a combination of two units. Otherwise the word combined is not just useless, it's misleading and wrong.

And you still haven't shown support for your assertion that an IC ceases to be a unit. It's not a separate unit, true - but I don't see any rules saying its not longer a unit. I've shown one place that absolutely shows its still a unit (DoW deployment) and another that you disagree with me on. You've shown nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:It's one unit that is a combination of two units. Otherwise the word combined is not just useless, it's misleading and wrong.

Not really. It's a necessary term to indicate the new unit. When they're trying to discuss the rules for an IC joining a unit they can't say something like "The IC joins the unit and then the unit functions like this...". So they say the "combined unit" to indicate what they're talking about.

rigeld2 wrote:And you still haven't shown support for your assertion that an IC ceases to be a unit. It's not a separate unit, true - but I don't see any rules saying its not longer a unit. I've shown one place that absolutely shows its still a unit (DoW deployment) and another that you disagree with me on. You've shown nothing.

Honestly you haven't really shown anything either. The DoW deployment rules are totally irrelevant. This has basically devolved into other people saying that when an IC joins a unit they become a single unit and you saying "nuh-uh!".

I think someone brought up the example of the Techmarine joining a unit of servitors earlier. That's a perfect example. The Techmarine gets a +1 to repair rolls for every servitor in "the unit". What could that mean? Well the Techmarine is his own unit so I claim that since the rules are under the entry for his unit they are to be applied to the the "Techmarine unit". Oh, what? He's joined to another unit of Servitors? Well the Techmarine is still his own unit so he doesn't get the bonus. That's exactly how you're applying the Acts of Faith rule.

You're picking and choosing how to read the word "unit" and you can't do that. The "unit" is an IC alone, some squad, or an IC joined to another unit. And by definition of the word "unit" you can't break it up. Once it's a unit it's "one unit". You don't get to choose whether a given rule refers to the squad or the IC based on how you think the rules should work.

Page 49, resolving combats - the IC is *treated as* a seperate unit while resolving attacks.

If the IC were still a unit by itself then this is not required.

If the IC is still a unit, I will target the IC unit with my shooting attacks - oh wait, you cant do that because the IC is no longer a unit, except in combat when it is treated as one

Claiming the IC is still a unit is far, far worse than claiming it isnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 49, resolving combats - the IC is *treated as* a seperate unit while resolving attacks.

If the IC were still a unit by itself then this is not required.

Not true. Because they're a combined unit, and because the shooting rules allow wound allocation to the IC, something needs to be mentioned to ensure they're separate in CC.

If the IC is still a unit, I will target the IC unit with my shooting attacks - oh wait, you cant do that because the IC is no longer a unit, except in combat when it is treated as one

Specifically forbidden on page 49, they're "considered part of the unit" they joined. If it was a single unit, this wouldn't be required.

Claiming the IC is still a unit is far, far worse than claiming it isnt.

I'm not 100% sure that's true, mostly because I haven't had time to go through all the codexes and figure out what breaks using either interpretation.

Something needs to be mentioned because otherwise they would NOT be a unit of their own in close comabt

Page 49 says they are *again* a normal member of the unit. They are a member of the unit, not a unit in and of themselves.

Regardless - if you claim an IC joined toa unit is stil la unit in and of itself, then according to the shooting rules where you target *units* I am allowed to target the IC. This alone entirely breaks ICs from working in a meaningful sense