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.

Does this tactic still work post 7th? If so, a mobile Loota army would be awesome (granted, not that being BS1 versus BS2 is a huge loss).

Yes S&P is still "a unit that contains at least 1 model with the rule"

The Loota models don't get the rule, they just are affected by it.

Even artillery can be affected, and they make the mek T7 vs shooting

Charistoph wrote:
The Loota models don't get the rule, they just are affected by it.

This is wrong. There are no rules in the game that define " affected". This is not a rule or defined condition in 40k. You either have a special rule or you don't. You can temporarily gain rules under certain conditions such as a special rule that targets all models in a unit. But you can never use a special rule just because you feel like it. This is why the rulebook state you GAIN the rule.
The exact wording completely contradicts your statement.
"A unit with at least one model" and then that rule defines the special exceptions those MODELS gain.

gungo wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The Loota models don't get the rule, they just are affected by it.

This is wrong. There are no rules in the game that define " affected". This is not a rule or defined condition in 40k. You either have a special rule or you don't. You can temporarily gain rules under certain conditions such as a special rule that targets all models in a unit. But you can never use a special rule just because you feel like it. This is why the rulebook state you GAIN the rule.
The exact wording completely contradicts your statement.
"A unit with at least one model" and then that rule defines the special exceptions those MODELS gain.

No, the Loota models do not have the rule. However they are still affected by it. Most of the time it does not matter, however, if a weapon was created that could not allocate Wounds to models with Slow and Purposeful (see Dark Eldar for precedent), then only the Lootas could have Wounds allocated to them, but not the Megaboss.

gungo wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The Loota models don't get the rule, they just are affected by it.

This is wrong. There are no rules in the game that define " affected". This is not a rule or defined condition in 40k. You either have a special rule or you don't. You can temporarily gain rules under certain conditions such as a special rule that targets all models in a unit. But you can never use a special rule just because you feel like it. This is why the rulebook state you GAIN the rule.
The exact wording completely contradicts your statement.
"A unit with at least one model" and then that rule defines the special exceptions those MODELS gain.

No, it never says, "models in a unit with at least one model with this rule gain this rule.". This is a failure of perspective.

The Loota UNIT, and only the unit, gains the capacity to ignore certain rules with Slow and Purposeful. The Loota MODELS are affected because they are part of the UNIT. This is what the rule says.

The only thing gunga had correct is that the models are not affected.

They are effected.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The only thing gunga had correct is that the models are not affected.

They are effected.

af·fect - verb - have an effect on; make a difference to.

ef·fect - noun - a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
- verb - cause (something) to happen; bring about.

A model only gains special rules that are gained as part of the unit or model itself.

The entire premise that models are affected by rules it has no access to are made up garbage. "Affected" by rules without having access to them is never defined stated or explained anywhere in the rulebook. But please go ahead and provide the section in the rulebook that explains how models are affected from special rules without gaining access to the rule.

Slow and purposeful is a rule that clearly defines that the entire unit are slow and purposeful.

gungo, seeing as you're insisting on people providing the section in the rulebook that explains a unit gaining the benefit of a rule without possessing the rule itself, would you care to reference the part of the rulebook where it says, in the case of Slow and Purposeful, that the entire unit gains the rule simply because one model has it?

In fact Slow and Purposeful tells us what a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule may and may not do beyond their ordinary rules, i.e. they gain the benefit that Slow and Purposeful's special rule description describes. That's self-explanatory to any ordinary, intelligent person.

Nowhere at all do the rules say those models actually gain the special rule, i.e. that we should imagine or consider the situation to be some kind of equivalent or parallel to the unit having the special rule listed on their datasheet or army list entry.

Thus you are in fact making up garbage, and are doing so in an unnecessarily hostile and argumentative manner. Please desist.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)... are not conferred upon the Independent Character... Special rules that are conferred ...
- Special Rules, Independent Character

As the Quoted Rule governs how Rules are 'conferred' to 'joined Units,' please inform us what you believe this word to mean in context of the Rule.

Charistoph wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The only thing gunga had correct is that the models are not affected.

They are effected.

af·fect - verb - have an effect on; make a difference to.

ef·fect - noun - a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
- verb - cause (something) to happen; bring about.

Right, models are effected (changed) not affected (impacted). What's the point here?

gungo wrote:
A model only gains special rules that are gained as part of the unit or model itself.

Yes, and no.

Models actually gain Special Rules in one of two ways. The first way is that the Special Rules are provided on their Unit Datasheet. The second way is that the unit the model receives Special Rules from the Detachment they are in, either from the Formation's Datasheet or the Detachment FOC Command Benefits.

But Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful never state either of the following: "The unit receives this rule" or "The models in this unit receive this rule". You are applying an unwritten standard when you do this.

gungo wrote:
The entire premise that models are affected by rules it has no access to are made up garbage. "Affected" by rules without having access to them is never defined stated or explained anywhere in the rulebook. But please go ahead and provide the section in the rulebook that explains how models are affected from special rules without gaining access to the rule.

Slow and purposeful is a rule that clearly defines that the entire unit are slow and purposeful.

No, not at all. What Slow an purposeful states is:

"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot Run, Turbo-boost, move Flat Out, perform Sweeping Advances or fire Overwatch. However, they can shoot with Heavy, Salvo and Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire or Salvo weapons."

So, no, Slow and Purposeful, and rules like it, does not give the unit or models any rules. They give benefits, restrictions, etc, (aka they affect the unit with effects), to units, that is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The only thing gunga had correct is that the models are not affected.

They are effected.

af·fect - verb - have an effect on; make a difference to.

ef·fect - noun - a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
- verb - cause (something) to happen; bring about.

Right, models are effected (changed) not affected (impacted). What's the point here?

Affect is the more common verb and effect is the noun. Affect is only used as a noun in a psychiatric use, but used as a verb is used as a current set up.

Special Rules generate a change, but don't always cause something to happen.

Effected is a verb in the past participle; it means changed, altered, or under the effect of.

Effected is the correct term in this case because the models benefit from the rule in an immediate sense.

Affected would be having an impact on the situation in a much more lasting sense.

Models in a unit are effected by these types of rules. Older models and codices are affected by changes of rules between editions.

For example: GCs were affected by the current change in wording for their shooting. A unit that suffers an unsaved wound from a weapon with the blind special rule are effected by it.

The difference between the 2 verbs is subtle; and that was the purpose of my winky orkmoticon.

No.

To effect means to bring about, implement or carry out an effect or change.

To affect means to have an effect (in the nounal sense) upon.

"The company had planned to make some changes to their sales plan. Those changes were effected successfully, and the company was affected by having its profits increased.

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:
A model only gains special rules that are gained as part of the unit or model itself.

Yes, and no.

Models actually gain Special Rules in one of two ways. The first way is that the Special Rules are provided on their Unit Datasheet. The second way is that the unit the model receives Special Rules from the Detachment they are in, either from the Formation's Datasheet or the Detachment FOC Command Benefits.

But Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful never state either of the following: "The unit receives this rule" or "The models in this unit receive this rule". You are applying an unwritten standard when you do this.

gungo wrote:
The entire premise that models are affected by rules it has no access to are made up garbage. "Affected" by rules without having access to them is never defined stated or explained anywhere in the rulebook. But please go ahead and provide the section in the rulebook that explains how models are affected from special rules without gaining access to the rule.

Slow and purposeful is a rule that clearly defines that the entire unit are slow and purposeful.

No, not at all. What Slow an purposeful states is:

"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot Run, Turbo-boost, move Flat Out, perform Sweeping Advances or fire Overwatch. However, they can shoot with Heavy, Salvo and Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire or Salvo weapons."

So, no, Slow and Purposeful, and rules like it, does not give the unit or models any rules. They give benefits, restrictions, etc, (aka they affect the unit with effects), to units, that is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The only thing gunga had correct is that the models are not affected.

They are effected.

af·fect - verb - have an effect on; make a difference to.

ef·fect - noun - a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
- verb - cause (something) to happen; bring about.

Right, models are effected (changed) not affected (impacted). What's the point here?

Affect is the more common verb and effect is the noun. Affect is only used as a noun in a psychiatric use, but used as a verb is used as a current set up.

Special Rules generate a change, but don't always cause something to happen.

Completely and utterly wrong is your statement.
Which I don't understand how you screw it up when you quote it. But the rule flat out states it works on "a unit" a single unit. Then goes on to explain the effects of the rule which clearly addresses "they" as in the models as in plural. How do you screw this up I have no idea. But it's obvious your intention is agenda based and has nothing to do with the rules. It's funny how you bold the entire paragraph but the one line that contradicts your agenda "that contains at least one model" is the sentence that grants the sharing of the rule for "a unit".

FFS someone lock this thread, the poor guy got his answer already; arguing about semantics only leads to flames.

gungo, you're claiming the rules say the unit gains the special rule.

Where does it say this?

Instead of simply telling someone they're wrong after demanding their own references (which they've provided), why not explain with your own references why you disagree?

Any idiot can plug their ears with their fingers, tell someone they're wrong and simply shout them down when asked to explain why. Prove this statement wrong for yourself.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
gungo, you're claiming the rules say the unit gains the special rule.

Where does it say this?

Instead of simply telling someone they're wrong after demanding their own references (which they've provided), why not explain with your own references why you disagree?

Any idiot can plug their ears with their fingers, tell someone they're wrong and simply shout them down when asked to explain why. Prove this statement wrong for yourself.

He never provided anything to do with the word affect that are defined anywhere in the rulebook.

And for shouting I haven't been yelling the same Nonesense in every thread and attacking every single person who disagrees with my opinion till the thread is locked on multiple websites. Nor did I even bring this debate up in another thread after he has the last thread locked on the same subject. In fact his entire point had nothing to do with the op question. That is on you and Chris.

I'm claiming slow and purposeful clearly says "a unit that has at least one model with this special rule."

It's a unit based rule that affects the entire unit.

Then goes on to detail "they" as in the models effects of that rule.

There is no statement, rule, example anywhere in the rulebook that claims effects are used without a special rule. They either are gained as a unit rule or model rule. This is why special rules target a unit or a model ( and in some cases special targets such as the warlord or a specific squad) because that unit or model gains a rule.

Overall you can always give them "Da supa cybork armor" gives the bearer "relentless" which the WHOLE squad gets...


Give it to a mek boy and he will do great things...

gungo wrote:
He never provided anything to do with the word affect that are defined anywhere in the rulebook.

It's self-explanatory. What Slow and Purposeful allows a unit with at least one model with the rule (and disallows them from doing too) is an effect on said unit. It's simply the word used to describe what Slow and Purposeful does to a unit that meets its requirements.

You said earlier that it is wrong that the unit does not gain the special rule. Charistoph and myself (and others) are pointing out the difference between a unit having a special rule (i.e. it being on their datasheet, or the rules saying, "x unit gains the y special rule") and having a special rule do something to them.

Slow and Purposeful does something to a unit that has at least one model in the unit with the rule. To do something means to have an effect on; to affect.

And for shouting I haven't been yelling the same Nonesense in every thread and attacking every single person who disagrees with my opinion till the thread is locked on multiple websites. Nor did I even bring this debate up in another thread after he has the last thread locked on the same subject. In fact his entire point had nothing to do with the op question. That is on you and Chris.

A person cannot argue with themselves, or with others who share the same viewpoint. In other words it takes two to tango, so it's hilarious you're blaming Charistoph and myself when it's impossible for the two of us to reply to nothing. You are just as complicit and to blame, I'm afraid.

The difference is that Charistoph and I are not simply saying, "You're wrong. You just don't listen to rules. I'm not even going to explain why you're wrong because you just are." Which is what you have shown yourself to do here. See how I'm actually challenging you to do better than that, and actually explain your reasons rather than just ignoring someone and telling them they're wrong? Any idiot can do that. It's much more interesting to actually engage in the discussion with something meaningful.

I'm claiming slow and purposeful clearly says "a unit that has at least one model with this special rule."

Well yes. That's exactly what the rule says, as plain as day, printed in crisp black ink right there on the paper. None of us are disagreeing with that.

It's a unit based rule that affects the entire unit.

Affects? I thought you said the rules don't support anything to do with a rule affecting anything?

Which one is it? Please, be consistent. You're agreeing with us now if you say the rule affects the unit.

Then goes on to detail "they" as in the models effects of that rule.

Do you mean, "as in the models affected by that rule"? That seems to make much more sense.

There is no statement, rule, example anywhere in the rulebook that claims effects are used without a special rule. They either are gained as a unit rule or model rule. This is why special rules target a unit or a model ( and in some cases special targets such as the warlord or a specific squad) because that unit or model gains a rule.

Prove it. The rules never say the model is given the special rule, unless they actually say the model is given the special rule. In the case of Slow and Purposeful it definitely does not say this, although we now seem to agree that, even if only one model in the unit actually has the special rule, then the whole unit gains some extra permissions and restrictions (i.e. effects, i.e. the unit is affected).

In short, there's a difference between a model having a special rule (i.e. being told it is given that rule, or having the rule on its datasheet) and a model being given additional permissions or restrictions because it's in a unit with another model who has a special rule.

gungo wrote:Completely and utterly wrong is your statement.
Which I don't understand how you screw it up when you quote it. But the rule flat out states it works on "a unit" a single unit. Then goes on to explain the effects of the rule which clearly addresses "they" as in the models as in plural. How do you screw this up I have no idea. But it's obvious your intention is agenda based and has nothing to do with the rules. It's funny how you bold the entire paragraph but the one line that contradicts your agenda "that contains at least one model" is the sentence that grants the sharing of the rule for "a unit".

I never at one single point did say that Slow and Purposeful does not work on units. In fact, I've stated the opposite.

All I have said is that Slow and Purposeful, and rules like it, do not give the units or models Slow and Purposeful (or whichever rule is in question), they give a benefit or a restriction to the unit, which then affects the models in the unit.

I bolded what was affected and the effects they were given, I didn't see the point of highlighting the conditions. At not one single point is the word "given" or its conjugations or synonyms used with the name of the rule, nor with the word rule.

gungo wrote:He never provided anything to do with the word affect that are defined anywhere in the rulebook.

Because I did not wish to be dragged down with specifics, and used affect in the general English form. To counter, you have not shown where the rule gives itself to to the unit or other models.

And for shouting I haven't been yelling the same Nonesense in every thread and attacking every single person who disagrees with my opinion till the thread is locked on multiple websites. Nor did I even bring this debate up in another thread after he has the last thread locked on the same subject. In fact his entire point had nothing to do with the op question. That is on you and Chris.

Than you need to review those threads. At most, I have only "yelled at" or "attacked" two or three people specifically, and that is because they either misquoted me, misrepresented me, went down pointless tangents, or consistently applying rules that they could not quote.

Yet, you have attacked us numerous times for quoting the rules.

I'm claiming slow and purposeful clearly says "a unit that has at least one model with this special rule."

It's a unit based rule that affects the entire unit.

Then goes on to detail "they" as in the models effects of that rule.

There is no statement, rule, example anywhere in the rulebook that claims effects are used without a special rule. They either are gained as a unit rule or model rule. This is why special rules target a unit or a model ( and in some cases special targets such as the warlord or a specific squad) because that unit or model gains a rule.

Correct up to that last statement. At no point in the rulebook does it state that any unit-affecting rule grants its rule to the unit. Slow and Purposeful gives a unit that carries at least one model with this rule the ability to fire certain Weapons as if they had stood still and charge in the same turn. At no point does Slow and Purposeful state in any context that all models gain Slow and Purposeful.

WE may say that as short hand while talking with friends and other players, because it is faster to just run with it. But when dealing with other rules that are new and assessing the aspects of their impact, it is important to remember what it actually says.

Imagine a unit of 9 Space Marines and 1 Centurion. The Centurion has the USR Slow and Purposeful, therefore the entire unit benefits from it. All models may shoot Heavy weapons as if standing still despite moving

The Centurion dies. No model is left with the USR Slow and Purposeful, therefore the remaining 9 Space Marines may NOT shoot Heavy weapons as if standing still while moving.

If it were actually the case that the Space Marine models had "gained" the actual Special Rule, there would still be 9 models left with the Special Rule Slow and Purposeful, so the 9 remaining Space Marines may still shoot as if immobile despite moving. Why? Because nowhere in the rules it says that you would LOOSE the Special Rule then. There is no limit to it like "until the beginning of the owning players next turn" or whatever, it would just stay on the models.

That's the difference between the 9 other Models gaining a Special Rule and merely benefiting from it. The later is what the rules tell us to do.


PS: How bored can you guys be to argue over "affect" vs "effect" in such length?

Probably about as bored as you'd have to be to add another post on a thread that by any reasonable person's assessment should probably have run its course...

 zombiekila707 wrote:
Overall you can always give them "Da supa cybork armor" gives the bearer "relentless" which the WHOLE squad gets...

Relentless in no way affects (or effects, whatever) the rest of the unit.

Really? were having an argument about the proper terminology for SnP on a unit that doesnt normally have it? eesh....the internet

The lootas gain both the positive perks and negative perks of Slow and Purposeful when a MegaArmor Mek or Boss joins the unit, but no they do not technically have the rule. All that means is once the MA model leaves the lootas immediately loses the rule, they dont retain it.

Thats the difference between Slow and Purposeful and Relentless. Relentless has no negative values to it but its on a model by model basis. SnP gives its benefits to the entire squad, but it has drawbacks (no overwatch cannot run or sweep)

Let's stop all this arguing bs-ing!

Bottom line, if a mega armoured character joins my bloody Lootas can they move and shoot? That's all I need to know. Not whether they're effected, affected, overruled, underruled, granted rules, granted wishes, wished upon a star or buggered.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Let's stop all this arguing bs-ing!

Bottom line, if a mega armoured character joins my bloody Lootas can they move and shoot? That's all I need to know. Not whether they're effected, affected, overruled, underruled, granted rules, granted wishes, wished upon a star or buggered.

It's more establishing the connections so one can answer their own question when they come across a similar rule in the future.

Sometimes the discussion isn't always about the rule itself, but the parameters that are repeated by other rules, and so the answer duplicates from one rule to the other.

So, like Slow and Purposeful, there are rules like Stubborn, Fearless, and others which allow the rule to be sourced from an IC to benefit/restrict a unit they join, or the rule to be sourced from a unit and benefit an IC that joins them.

Other rules do not state they affect the unit, like Relentless, Hatred, and others, so only the models that possess the rules benefit from them.

To the other side of this, there are some rules that affect the unit, but still require all models in the unit, including joined ICs, to possess the rule, like Fleet and Deep Strike.

And then there are odd rules like Counter-Attack that are triggered by events on the unit, but only the models which possess the rule may benefit from them.

And just to make things even more complicated, there are some rules which benefit the unit, and an IC may possess, but the IC won't be able to pass on to the unit he joins. In most cases, these are Command Benefits and Formation Special Rules, and the IC loses his unit identity when he joins another unit.

Cristoph is correct.

Dakkadakka may be a pretty unique community in that we do not simply answer yes or no, nor do we just give the answer to questions: we give the tools to answer them yourself(and we take pride in our work).

Semantic arguments aside: the unit gains the benefits and penalties from slow an purposeful.

Any time you see a rule that begins with the phrase "units that contain at least 1 model with this special rule" is very likely to provide the benefits and penalties to all models in the unit. You still have to read the whole rest of the rule because the rules may still state that it is only models with the rule that benefit although that is very rare(I can only think of 1 rule that I vaguely recall having that setup and cannot remember which rule that is off hand right now)