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.

If I stick a terminator hq into my devs, can they move then shoot?

Nope. Relentless does NOT transfer over to the unit. Slow and Purposeful, though, does.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Slow and Purposeful, though, does.

Not if the IC isn't part of the unit. Supposedly, they aren't part of the unit for other rules which affect the unit, according to the Draft FAQ.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Slow and Purposeful, though, does.

Not if the IC isn't part of the unit. Supposedly, they aren't part of the unit for other rules which affect the unit, according to the Draft FAQ.

The Draft FAQ is dealing with rules that are applied to 'the unit'.



Slow and Purposeful reads differently.


USR that are written that way confer the special rule ability just fine according to the Independent Character Special Rules rule since Slow and Purposeful has the same clause that Stubborn has that specifically logically incorporates attached models ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule").



USRs don't automatically confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) unless the USR follows the pattern of Stubborn to specifically incorporate the IC. Simpy stating "the unit . . ." or "a unit . . ." is not specific enough.

col_impact wrote:
The Draft FAQ is dealing with rules that are applied to 'the unit'.

Spoiler:

Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.

p

Exactly what I was referring to.

col_impact wrote:
Slow and Purposeful reads differently.

Spoiler:

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.

USR that are written that way confer the special rule ability just fine according to the Independent Character Special Rules rule since Slow and Purposeful has the same clause that Stubborn has that specifically logically incorporates attached models ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule").

See, Slow and Purposeful only refers to applying the benefit to the unit.

Where is IC included as part of the unit in this statement you underlined?

Where is the IC mentioned at all in this rule?

How is the IC part of the unit for Slow and Purposeful, but not for the rules listed in the Draft FAQ above?

Remember, the possession of a rule is never stated to propagate to others in normal grammar, nor do the rules grant this capacity.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

USRs don't automatically confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) unless the USR follows the pattern of Stubborn to specifically incorporate the IC. Simpy stating "the unit . . ." or "a unit . . ." is not specific enough.

And that's the point.

The only way an IC can be included in Slow and Purposeful and Stubborn is if they are included in the reference to the "unit" in question. If they are part of the unit for Stubborn and Slow and Purposeful, why are they not part of the unit for Dunestrider or Sternhammer Assault Formation Rules? If they are not part of the unit for Dunestriker or Formation Rules, then they cannot be fore Stubborn and Slow and Purposeful.

Remember, in order for an IC to be included as part of "a unit with at least one model with this special rule", it still has to be part of the unit in the first place. If they are not part of "a unit", then "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" means nothing since the fail being part of the very first noun. If they are part of "a unit", then they are part of "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" AND when a rules states "a unit does this". The concepts are quite inseparable, no matter what the drunken monkeys and an impacted colon may think.

The BRB specifically states that USR's worded as "A unit witch contains at least one model with this special rule..." apply to an IC when they join a unit, and vice versa.

The draft was refering to rules specific to units or formations which do not word the rule as "at least one model in the unit". Seeing as though the draft was created to clarify rules rather than to overule rules in the BRB, the original IC rules still stand. (That sentence contained too many 'rules' )

Slow and purposeful therefore does confer over to the devistators.

You are misunderstanding the FAQ.

A rule that says "a unit with this special rule" or "units from this formation" or "x units" gain x does not transfer to an IC.

So an autarch joined to a warp spiders unit from an aspect shrine can neither flickerjump(and therefore the unit cannot), nor does he receive +1 bs.

If that autarch were stubborn, fearless, stealth, shrouded, s&p, atsknf, or any of the other special rules that state a unit containing 1 or more models with this special rule; then that special rule would still function.

You really need to look at the context in which these statements are made. The question specifically asks about unit special rules from formation and command benefits and specific unit special rules.

mrhappyface wrote:The BRB specifically states that USR's worded as "A unit witch contains at least one model with this special rule..." apply to an IC when they join a unit, and vice versa.

The draft was refering to rules specific to units or formations which do not word the rule as "at least one model in the unit". Seeing as though the draft was created to clarify rules rather than to overule rules in the BRB, the original IC rules still stand. (That sentence contained too many 'rules' )

No, it does not. The Independent Character rule does not state this. Stubborn does not state this. Unless we consider the IC as part of "a unit", then the IC is not mentioned anywhere and not included.

"With at least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use, just as "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" is a condition. A condition of use does not transfer anything. All "with at least one model with this special rule" is to differentiate it from the default use such as Relentless' "model with this special rule", or the requirement for everyone such as Fleet's "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule".

So, either the Independent Character is part of "a unit" or it is not. The Draft FAQ is either nonsense which applies differentiations as to when an IC is part of the unit and which is no where in the rulebook, or an IC without Slow and Purposeful cannot gain it from a unit with it. Slow and Purposeful is a special rule that affects the entire unit.

Kommissar Kel wrote:You are misunderstanding the FAQ.

A rule that says "a unit with this special rule" or "units from this formation" or "x units" gain x does not transfer to an IC.

So an autarch joined to a warp spiders unit from an aspect shrine can neither flickerjump(and therefore the unit cannot), nor does he receive +1 bs.

If that autarch were stubborn, fearless, stealth, shrouded, s&p, atsknf, or any of the other special rules that state a unit containing 1 or more models with this special rule; then that special rule would still function.

You really need to look at the context in which these statements are made. The question specifically asks about unit special rules from formation and command benefits and specific unit special rules.

It also asks about rules that affect are a unit-wide affect. This applies to rules like Stubborn and Slow and Purposeful, which affect the entire unit.

Why would an IC be considered part of a unit for a USR, but not part of a unit for a unit's unique special rule, an army's special rule, or a Formation's special rule? No such distinction is ever properly stated in the rulebook.

 Charistoph wrote:

No, it does not. The Independent Character rule does not state this. Stubborn does not state this. Unless we consider the IC as part of "a unit", then the IC is not mentioned anywhere and not included.

Actually I am quoting directly from the rule book which is sat right next to me. Both myself and col_impact have now quoted this rule directly from the BRB.

 Charistoph wrote:
Why would an IC be considered part of a unit for a USR, but not part of a unit for a unit's unique special rule, an army's special rule, or a Formation's special rule? No such distinction is ever properly stated in the rulebook.

Because before the Draft FAQ, ICs were considered part of the unit for all of those examples. The Draft FAQ is specifically ignoring RAW and making a ruling contradicting the actual rules.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No, it does not. The Independent Character rule does not state this. Stubborn does not state this. Unless we consider the IC as part of "a unit", then the IC is not mentioned anywhere and not included.

Actually I am quoting directly from the rule book which is sat right next to me. Both myself and col_impact have now quoted this rule directly from the BRB.

No where does it state that the condition "contains a model with this special rule" is the condition which allows the Special Rule to confer between unit and Independent Characters. It does not say it in Stubborn, since "Independent Character" is not written once in that rule. It does not say it in the Independent Character, since it only refers one to Stubborn. It does not say it in the Draft FAQ set anywhere as to what the specific condition is which allows special rule to confer. The condition of "contains a model with this special rule" is a fabrication that ignores basic English and grammar.

The very fact that Counter-Attack exists as it does indicates that the condition "contains a model with this special rule" does not provide ability to confer, as it only checking to see how many models actually have this special rule.

The Independent Character rule states that an Independent Character counts as part of the unit it joins FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. The Special Rules section does not change this one bit. It does not state that it is no longer part of the unit for Special Rules, it only states that special rules do not automatically confer between the IC and the unit he joins.

In order for an Independent Character to be represented in Stubborn, it must be as part of "a unit". In order for an Independent Character to be represented in Slow and Purposeful, it must be as part of "a unit". In order for an Independent Character to be represented in Fearless, it must be as part of "a unit". And so on. There is no other place in these rules Independent Character can be presented as it being applicable to.

If an IC is not considered part of "a unit" when it comes to Special Rules, then it is not part of "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". It is also not part of "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule". It also would not be part of "When the unit..."

For all but the most unwritten restrictions, that is how it works, all or nothing.

If you believe otherwise, please quote Stubborn and highlight where it states "Independent Character". Please quote and/or highlight where it states the specific phrase in the Independent Character rules without referring to Stubborn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Why would an IC be considered part of a unit for a USR, but not part of a unit for a unit's unique special rule, an army's special rule, or a Formation's special rule? No such distinction is ever properly stated in the rulebook.

Because before the Draft FAQ, ICs were considered part of the unit for all of those examples. The Draft FAQ is specifically ignoring RAW and making a ruling contradicting the actual rules.

Which goes back to my point that Slow and Purposeful would not be granted across the board any more than Dunestrider, and for the exact same reasons. The question made no distinction between a USR and an Unique SR.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Why would an IC be considered part of a unit for a USR, but not part of a unit for a unit's unique special rule, an army's special rule, or a Formation's special rule? No such distinction is ever properly stated in the rulebook.

Because before the Draft FAQ, ICs were considered part of the unit for all of those examples. The Draft FAQ is specifically ignoring RAW and making a ruling contradicting the actual rules.

This is not really a true statement, there were many people arguing that the section on special rules and ICs separated the two for special rules unless the special rule had specit wording. Which turned out to be the correct thing.

blaktoof wrote:
This is not really a true statement, there were many people arguing that the section on special rules and ICs separated the two for special rules unless the special rule had specit wording. Which turned out to be the correct thing.

The Draft FAQ never mentions any special wording.

blaktoof wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Why would an IC be considered part of a unit for a USR, but not part of a unit for a unit's unique special rule, an army's special rule, or a Formation's special rule? No such distinction is ever properly stated in the rulebook.

Because before the Draft FAQ, ICs were considered part of the unit for all of those examples. The Draft FAQ is specifically ignoring RAW and making a ruling contradicting the actual rules.

This is not really a true statement, there were many people arguing that the section on special rules and ICs separated the two for special rules unless the special rule had specit wording. Which turned out to be the correct thing.

No, many people were arguing for something they didn't want and grasping at straws to rationalize it. RAW was always clear

Both of you are still in denial.

The section on ICs and joining units with different special rules is clear, and the faq follows it.

 Charistoph wrote:

No where does it state that the condition "contains a model with this special rule" is the condition which allows the Special Rule to confer between unit and Independent Characters. It does not say it in Stubborn, since "Independent Character" is not written once in that rule. It does not say it in the Independent Character, since it only refers one to Stubborn. It does not say it in the Draft FAQ set anywhere as to what the specific condition is which allows special rule to confer. The condition of "contains a model with this special rule" is a fabrication that ignores basic English and grammar..

The IC rule says "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferredt upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

When you look at Stubborn, it state "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."

So, they do indicate that "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is one wording that will allow powers that the IC or unit have to transfer between the two. It might not be the only one, but I can't think of any other one they've used off the top of my head; they probably found this the most convenient shorthand for it to apply. If that isn't the trigger for stubborn, then there is never any trigger, but we are told Stubborn works for being transferred by the IC rules, and that is the only trigger phrase in the Stubborn rule that would provide the exception that is stated by the IC rules to be required. If it works for Stubborn, it works for S&P and any other special rule that has that wording.

With the wording of IC special rules being able to transfer to a unit, that is an indication that they do treat the IC as part of the unit. It's just that you have to have wording on the special rules for it to transfer. If the IC wasn't considered part of the unit, he would never be able to transfer a special rule to a unit, and the IC section makes it clear that that is possible.

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No where does it state that the condition "contains a model with this special rule" is the condition which allows the Special Rule to confer between unit and Independent Characters. It does not say it in Stubborn, since "Independent Character" is not written once in that rule. It does not say it in the Independent Character, since it only refers one to Stubborn. It does not say it in the Draft FAQ set anywhere as to what the specific condition is which allows special rule to confer. The condition of "contains a model with this special rule" is a fabrication that ignores basic English and grammar..

The IC rule says "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferredt upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

When you look at Stubborn, it state "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."

So, they do indicate that "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is one wording that will allow powers that the IC or unit have to transfer between the two. It might not be the only one, but I can't think of any other one they've used off the top of my head; they probably found this the most convenient shorthand for it to apply. If that isn't the trigger for stubborn, then there is never any trigger, but we are told Stubborn works for being transferred by the IC rules, and that is the only trigger phrase in the Stubborn rule that would provide the exception that is stated by the IC rules to be required. If it works for Stubborn, it works for S&P and any other special rule that has that wording.

With the wording of IC special rules being able to transfer to a unit, that is an indication that they do treat the IC as part of the unit. It's just that you have to have wording on the special rules for it to transfer. If the IC wasn't considered part of the unit, he would never be able to transfer a special rule to a unit, and the IC section makes it clear that that is possible.

Looking at only one of two conditions, and that only a condition of possession, is insufficient to actually confer/transfer/grant anything.

Nothing in the IC Special Rules section states that this one condition provides the ability to confer. Stubborn does not state that this condition of possession is the ability to confer. That is an unreasonable extrapolation which is not supported by any English definition nor in the rulebook itself.

The place that actually confers anything is when the unit (i.e. "they") are told to ignore "negative leadership modifiers". In order to get to that point, the unit in question has to pass two conditions. Nevertheless, it is the unit that is receiving the benefit, just like in Dunestrider, just like in the Sternhammer Assault Force.

Looking at this thread I dispare: what kind of rabbit hole of rules have we fallen down. At this rate we'll need an FAQ for the FAQ because people still can't come to a unanomous opinion on things.

 Charistoph wrote:

Nothing in the IC Special Rules section states that this one condition provides the ability to confer. Stubborn does not state that this condition of possession is the ability to confer. That is an unreasonable extrapolation which is not supported by any English definition nor in the rulebook itself.

The place that actually confers anything is when the unit (i.e. "they") are told to ignore "negative leadership modifiers". In order to get to that point, the unit in question has to pass two conditions. Nevertheless, it is the unit that is receiving the benefit, just like in Dunestrider, just like in the Sternhammer Assault Force.

They indicate that Stubborn is an example, and Stubborn says that if at least one of the models in the unit has a rule, they get the benefits listed afterwards. Ignoring "negative leadership modifiers" is not what triggers it being able to be transferred; it's already done by the part saying that as the unit having at least one model has the rule. That's just the benefit by meeting the requirement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Looking at this thread I dispare: what kind of rabbit hole of rules have we fallen down. At this rate we'll need an FAQ for the FAQ because people still can't come to a unanomous opinion on things.

Yes, I'm afraid it's swirling down even as we type.

The FAQ in question is NOT official word as yet ..but a DRAFT ..which means arguments pertaining to it should be restricted to facebook where they are specifically asking for these arguments ..these draft faq's may be used or not used in your local meta but they are far from being accepted by all metas.

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Nothing in the IC Special Rules section states that this one condition provides the ability to confer. Stubborn does not state that this condition of possession is the ability to confer. That is an unreasonable extrapolation which is not supported by any English definition nor in the rulebook itself.

The place that actually confers anything is when the unit (i.e. "they") are told to ignore "negative leadership modifiers". In order to get to that point, the unit in question has to pass two conditions. Nevertheless, it is the unit that is receiving the benefit, just like in Dunestrider, just like in the Sternhammer Assault Force.

They indicate that Stubborn is an example, and Stubborn says that if at least one of the models in the unit has a rule, they get the benefits listed afterwards. Ignoring "negative leadership modifiers" is not what triggers it being able to be transferred; it's already done by the part saying that as the unit having at least one model has the rule. That's just the benefit by meeting the requirement.

Stubborn has two conditions. One is the number of models needed to trigger the ability. The second is the situation when it is able to be triggered. Neither of which state that this ability is given out. Indeed, if we follow the rules for Special Rules in general, and IC Special Rules specifically, possession alone cannot be an indicator of transference, indeed, it specifically states otherwise.

When Stubborn triggers, the ability is then directed at the unit which triggered its conditions. This is the only time any ability is given/transferred/conferred in the entire Rule of Stubborn.

The only opportunity for an IC without the Special Rule to get it from a unit OR for an IC with the Special Rule to give it to a unit, is being part of the unit which triggered the conditions.

Therefore, insisting that this phrase, "contains at least one model with this special rule", magically hands out abilities is a complete crock without something else specifically indicating as such. IC Special Rules only refer one to Stubborn to see how it confers while not saying WHAT makes Stubborn confer, so that can't be it. Stubborn never refers to Independent Characters, so either it is including it as part of "a unit" or it is not. The Draft FAQ indicates it is not since Stubborn still applies to the unit, and not the model.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Nothing in the IC Special Rules section states that this one condition provides the ability to confer. Stubborn does not state that this condition of possession is the ability to confer. That is an unreasonable extrapolation which is not supported by any English definition nor in the rulebook itself.

The place that actually confers anything is when the unit (i.e. "they") are told to ignore "negative leadership modifiers". In order to get to that point, the unit in question has to pass two conditions. Nevertheless, it is the unit that is receiving the benefit, just like in Dunestrider, just like in the Sternhammer Assault Force.

They indicate that Stubborn is an example, and Stubborn says that if at least one of the models in the unit has a rule, they get the benefits listed afterwards. Ignoring "negative leadership modifiers" is not what triggers it being able to be transferred; it's already done by the part saying that as the unit having at least one model has the rule. That's just the benefit by meeting the requirement.

Stubborn has two conditions. One is the number of models needed to trigger the ability. The second is the situation when it is able to be triggered. Neither of which state that this ability is given out. Indeed, if we follow the rules for Special Rules in general, and IC Special Rules specifically, possession alone cannot be an indicator of transference, indeed, it specifically states otherwise.

When Stubborn triggers, the ability is then directed at the unit which triggered its conditions. This is the only time any ability is given/transferred/conferred in the entire Rule of Stubborn.

The only opportunity for an IC without the Special Rule to get it from a unit OR for an IC with the Special Rule to give it to a unit, is being part of the unit which triggered the conditions.

Therefore, insisting that this phrase, "contains at least one model with this special rule", magically hands out abilities is a complete crock without something else specifically indicating as such. IC Special Rules only refer one to Stubborn to see how it confers while not saying WHAT makes Stubborn confer, so that can't be it. Stubborn never refers to Independent Characters, so either it is including it as part of "a unit" or it is not. The Draft FAQ indicates it is not since Stubborn still applies to the unit, and not the model.

Yes, the second condition needed is going to be something that triggers the condition. That's going to be true for any special rule (some triggers might just be the presence of a model with it). That will trigger it in whoever has it. What we're interested in is how it transfers between IC and unit (in whichever direction) - that is determined by the phrase "contains at least one model with this special rule". Insisting that it's something else that's the cause of the transfer is what is a complete crock. If the FAQ changes things so that Stubborn does not transfer, then they've completely changed the rules with the FAQ (and, as it's a draft, they have time to change it back). If they're treating the IC as not being part of the unit, then nothing would ever transfer, and they don't need that section in the rulebook saying that a special rule with specific wording, such as stubborn, would be able to transfer.

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, the second condition needed is going to be something that triggers the condition. That's going to be true for any special rule (some triggers might just be the presence of a model with it). That will trigger it in whoever has it. What we're interested in is how it transfers between IC and unit (in whichever direction) - that is determined by the phrase "contains at least one model with this special rule". Insisting that it's something else that's the cause of the transfer is what is a complete crock. If the FAQ changes things so that Stubborn does not transfer, then they've completely changed the rules with the FAQ (and, as it's a draft, they have time to change it back). If they're treating the IC as not being part of the unit, then nothing would ever transfer, and they don't need that section in the rulebook saying that a special rule with specific wording, such as stubborn, would be able to transfer.

That is NOT determined by the condition of possession. Possession does not automatically grant conferring. The rules specifically state that simple possession cannot confer. So, it is a crock that this phrase is what causes it to confer.

So, either it is Stubborn applying it to the unit that confers it to unit and IC both, or the IC is not part of the unit for Stubborn or any other Special Rule.

And yes, I brought this up last Spring when they first posted that FAQ Draft.

But hey, there were a lot of things in this Draft FAQ that went against the written rules, too, so this would not be the only one. Shall we refer to Blood Brothers and Transports during Deployment?

Special rules are abilities per the rules. Special rules do not affect the unit. Special rules are abilities that the unit has. A few special rules (like Blind) have abilities that can negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

An IC that joins the unit only gets the ability of the unit if it satisfies the IC Special Rules rule.





This is the rule that you choose to flat out ignore. Therefore your argument is entirely against the rules.

The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that by default the IC does not get the special rules of the unit.

This means that the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of determining if the special rules of the unit are conferred to the IC.

This means that as far as the conferring of special rules to the IC , the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is being overridden by the the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules of the unit conferring to the IC.

In order for an IC to get the special rules of the unit it must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule which means that the special must provide something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC.

Simply specifying "unit" is not enough. The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of conferring the special rules of the unit.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" incorporates models attached to that collective (in this case a unit) and so the IC Special Rules rule is satisfied and the IC gets the Stubborn ability.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" is a lot more specific than "a unit with the special rule" in the case of determining whether special rules are conferred to the IC and in fact only the former will satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.

The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of determining if special rules are conferred, but a logical clause like "[a collective] that contains at least one model with the special rule" will specifically incorporate him along with any other attached models.

col_impact wrote:
Special rules are abilities per the rules. Special rules do not affect the unit. Special rules are abilities that the unit has. A few special rules (like Blind) have abilities that can negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

That is either a deliberate lie or a major incomprehension of what is stated in these rules, demonstrable by the fact that many rules directly state they affect the unit.

Fleet allows a unit to re-rroll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge moves. Models are not mentioned, save as a condition of possession (i.e. composed entirely of models with).

Stubborn allows a unit to ignore negative Leadership Modifiers. Models are not mentioned, save as a condition of possession (i.e. at least one model with).

Fearless has a unit automatically pass Pinning, Fear, Regroup tests and Morale checks, among other things. Models are not mentioned save as a condition of possession (i.e., at least one model with).

First the Fire, then the Blade, from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force Formation, grants Devastator Squads (a Unit Name) Relentless, and allow Assault Squads (a Unit Name) to Charge even after having arrived from Deep Strike Reserves that turn.

Bounding Lope allows the unit to Run and then Charge, rerolling the distance.

Do I really need to go on?

col_impact wrote:
An IC that joins the unit only gets the ability of the unit if it satisfies the IC Special Rules rule.

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

This is the rule that you choose to flat out ignore. Therefore your argument is entirely against the rules.

Actually, I am not ignoring it. I am fully mindful of what it says. And you should remember that after the many many times we have gone over this. The only thing I am ignoring is the improper assertions which you continue to applying it.

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that by default the IC does not get the special rules of the unit.

A confirmation of the introduction of Special Rules, but still pertinent, nor have I ignored this statement with my assertion.

col_impact wrote:
This means that the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of determining if the special rules of the unit are conferred to the IC.

WRONG!!!! That is a complete fabrication and ignores what that rule actually states. It does NOT state that the IC does not count as part of the unit at any point in time in this section. All it actually states is that we do not treat the Special Rules listed on the unit's datasheet as being put on the IC's datasheet Special Rules section, and vice versa.

In point of fact, "does not count" is not even used anywhere in the Special Rules section. The status of counting an IC as part of the unit it has joined is not rescinded by this rule.

col_impact wrote:
In order for an IC to get the special rules of the unit it must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule which means that the special must provide something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC.

Agreed, but not by how the misinformation you propagated, but by the actual statement of the rule itself. There is a problem with the reference, though. The two words, "Independent Character" cannot be found in Stubborn. You cannot even find "joined model" in Stubborn. The only place one could find an IC being represented is if it is part of "a unit". If that is not good enough, then no Special Rule can confer between units and ICs. Chapter Masters cannot benefit from being in a unit with Centurions and Chaplains become Power Maul user with melee rerolls.

col_impact wrote:
A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" incorporates models attached to that collective (in this case a unit) and so the IC Special Rules rule is satisfied and the IC gets the Stubborn ability.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" is a lot more specific than "a unit with the special rule" in the case of determining whether special rules are conferred to the IC and in fact only the former will satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.

The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of determining if special rules are conferred, but a logical clause like "[a collective] that contains at least one model with the special rule" will specifically incorporate him along with any other attached models.

If an IC is not part of the unit for any Special Rule, he will not be found in "a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule." He has to be considered part of the a first in order to get past those two words. There is no difference between the reference to a unit in Stubborn then there is in Bounding Lope or First the Fire, Then the Blade.

"Containing at least one model" is not an inclusive statement, it is a statement of a condition of possession, especially when the statement itself is supposed to include "Independent Character", but does not. If it stated, "contains at least one model with this special rule, including those models which had joined it", that would be inclusive.

Your assertion is hypocritical and defeats itself.

Either an IC is part of a unit with Stubborn, which means it is part of a unit for Bounding Lope and First the Fire, Then the Blade. If the IC is not part of a unit with Bounding Lope and First the Fire, Then the Blade, then it is not part of a unit with Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful. It is the only consistent answer with what we have.

Chose which it is you want. You do not get to pick and choose.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Special rules are abilities per the rules. Special rules do not affect the unit. Special rules are abilities that the unit has. A few special rules (like Blind) have abilities that can negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

That is either a deliberate lie or a major incomprehension of what is stated in these rules, demonstrable by the fact that many rules directly state they affect the unit.

Fleet allows a unit to re-rroll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge moves. Models are not mentioned, save as a condition of possession (i.e. composed entirely of models with).

Stubborn allows a unit to ignore negative Leadership Modifiers. Models are not mentioned, save as a condition of possession (i.e. at least one model with).

Fearless has a unit automatically pass Pinning, Fear, Regroup tests and Morale checks, among other things. Models are not mentioned save as a condition of possession (i.e., at least one model with).

First the Fire, then the Blade, from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force Formation, grants Devastator Squads (a Unit Name) Relentless, and allow Assault Squads (a Unit Name) to Charge even after having arrived from Deep Strike Reserves that turn.

Bounding Lope allows the unit to Run and then Charge, rerolling the distance.

Do I really need to go on?

You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.

Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).

Special rules are abilities represented by the special rules themselves. We know this because the BRB defines them explicitly as such.




Stubborn is an ability. Counter-attack is an ability. Fleet is an ability. Move through cover is an ability.

Stubborn is an ability because the rules tell us that it is an ability.

Stubborn is conferred to the IC that joins a unit with the Stubborn ability because the rules tells us explicitly that this is the case.

Since special rules stand for the abilities themselves, the actual Stubborn ability is granted on the IC through the presence of "something specified in the rule itself" that specifically confers the special rule to the IC.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, the ability of the special rule is not conferred from the unit with the special rule to the IC unless the special rule includes something "specified in the rule itself" that specifically allows it.

The IC Special Rules rule sets the default for special rules of the unit to NOT confer to the attached ICs.

Therefore the IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". ICs are not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. In that circumstance, the IC Special Rules rule takes precedence and must be satisfied.

In order for the IC to get the ability of the special rule, the special rule must have something "specified in the rule itself" such as a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". The presence of an explicit clause like that one in the rule itself allows the special rule to be scoped to attached models which would logically include ICs.

So in short, in order for the ability represented by the special rule to confer from the unit to the IC you must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule and point to something "specified in the rule itself" that logically gets past the default state of no conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC. You keep pointing to the ICs "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause but that has been overridden by the IC Special Rules rule in the case of the conferring of the ability represented by the special rule of the unit onto the IC (and vice versa). Your stubborn refusal of this plain rules fact is nothing more than sheer stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge plainly written rules.

You are confusing ability with effect. The rules don't allow you to confuse them. The rules are explicit about what special rules are so listen to the BRB and follow its definitions.

All special rules are abilities. Some special rules have as their ability the means to cause a harmful or beneficial effect (such as Blind) but special rules are always abilities and only a few of those abilities cause effects (and those effects are just effects and not the special rules themselves). The Blind special rule is an ability of a weapon or model to cause a harmful effect on a unit. The unit that is the target of the harmful effect does not have the Blind special rule in any shape or form, only the ongoing harmful effect.

If you do not adhere to the definitions that the rules provide then you are not RAW. Nice house rule you have there. So sure if you break away from the BRB definitions then you can pretty much house rule whatever you want.

But I will stick with the Rules as Written. Let me know when you want to discuss RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This means that the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of determining if the special rules of the unit are conferred to the IC.

WRONG!!!! That is a complete fabrication and ignores what that rule actually states. It does NOT state that the IC does not count as part of the unit at any point in time in this section. All it actually states is that we do not treat the Special Rules listed on the unit's datasheet as being put on the IC's datasheet Special Rules section, and vice versa.

In point of fact, "does not count" is not even used anywhere in the Special Rules section. The status of counting an IC as part of the unit it has joined is not rescinded by this rule.

col_impact wrote:
In order for an IC to get the special rules of the unit it must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule which means that the special must provide something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC.

Agreed, but not by how the misinformation you propagated, but by the actual statement of the rule itself. There is a problem with the reference, though. The two words, "Independent Character" cannot be found in Stubborn. You cannot even find "joined model" in Stubborn. The only place one could find an IC being represented is if it is part of "a unit". If that is not good enough, then no Special Rule can confer between units and ICs. Chapter Masters cannot benefit from being in a unit with Centurions and Chaplains become Power Maul user with melee rerolls.

col_impact wrote:
A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" incorporates models attached to that collective (in this case a unit) and so the IC Special Rules rule is satisfied and the IC gets the Stubborn ability.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" is a lot more specific than "a unit with the special rule" in the case of determining whether special rules are conferred to the IC and in fact only the former will satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.

The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of determining if special rules are conferred, but a logical clause like "[a collective] that contains at least one model with the special rule" will specifically incorporate him along with any other attached models.

If an IC is not part of the unit for any Special Rule, he will not be found in "a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule." He has to be considered part of the a first in order to get past those two words. There is no difference between the reference to a unit in Stubborn then there is in Bounding Lope or First the Fire, Then the Blade.

"Containing at least one model" is not an inclusive statement, it is a statement of a condition of possession, especially when the statement itself is supposed to include "Independent Character", but does not. If it stated, "contains at least one model with this special rule, including those models which had joined it", that would be inclusive.

Your assertion is hypocritical and defeats itself.

Either an IC is part of a unit with Stubborn, which means it is part of a unit for Bounding Lope and First the Fire, Then the Blade. If the IC is not part of a unit with Bounding Lope and First the Fire, Then the Blade, then it is not part of a unit with Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful. It is the only consistent answer with what we have.

Chose which it is you want. You do not get to pick and choose.

In other words, you just flat out ignore the IC Special Rules rule.

What is the practical difference between your view and just throwing out the IC Special Rules rule altogether?

I know. Let's just throw out the IC Special Rules rule and pretend special rules are Ongoing Effects! Let's jut forget only a fraction of special rules are abilities that generate effects.

No matter how much you try to twist the rules, special rules are abilities and not Ongoing Effects.

The IC Special Rules rule provides exception to the "counts as" clause. The ability of the unit's special rules do not automatically confer unless there is something more specific than "a unit . . ." since that does not satisfy "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

col_impact wrote:
You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.

That is demonstrably false. Nothing in what you quoted before this response am I defining anything. I was countering your assertion that special rules do not affect units.

col_impact wrote:
Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).

FALSE. I have never stated they were effects, in this thread or any others. That is a deliberate misrepresentation and a bald-faced lie. I have repeatedly stated that Special Rules HAVE effects, not are effects. Learn to distinguish the two, or do you need to be hand-held through a google search like you have tried to do with me several times?

col_impact wrote:
Stubborn is conferred to the IC that joins a unit with the Stubborn ability because the rules tells us explicitly that this is the case.

Quote Stubborn and highlight where it explicitly states "independent character" or "joined model".

col_impact wrote:
Since special rules stand for the abilities themselves, the actual Stubborn ability is granted on the IC through the presence of "something specified in the rule itself" that specifically confers the special rule to the IC.

Quote Stubborn and highlight where it states, "Stubborn is conferred", or similarly. Point out the noun(s) to which it is given.

col_impact wrote:
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the ability of the special rule is not conferred from the unit with the special rule to the IC unless the special rule includes something "specified in the rule itself" that specifically allows it.

I stated as much. Why repeat something not in contention?

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule sets the default for special rules of the unit to NOT confer to the attached ICs.

Again, I stated as much. Why repeat something not in contention?

col_impact wrote:
Therefore the IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". ICs are not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. In that circumstance, the IC Special Rules rule takes precedence and must be satisfied.

Erroneous supposition based on the lack of evidence. You are taking the end you desire and forcing this on the paragraph. Quote the Special Rules portion of Independent Characters and highlight specifically where it states that they are not part of the unit for anything.

col_impact wrote:
In order for the IC to get the ability of the special rule, the special rule must have something "specified in the rule itself" such as a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". The presence of an explicit clause like that one in the rule itself allows the special rule to be scoped to attached models which would logically include ICs.

You are adding to the Independent Character rule. Something specified in the rule itself is needed, but no where does it state that "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" means "this special rule confers between independent characters". In fact, this phrase is not used anywhere in the Independent Character rule.

You need to review the synonyms and definitions for "contains, "with", and "confer". Here's a hint, "confer" has no synonyms with "contains" and "with". In fact, in normal order of operations, "confer" has to happen just so "contains" or "with" can even occur, i.e. something has to be given first in order for it to be had. By insisting on this phrase, you are using the result as the cause. You are serving your cake so you can cut it. That may work in Wonderland, but things operate a little differently here.

col_impact wrote:
So in short, in order for the ability represented by the special rule to confer from the unit to the IC you must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule and point to something "specified in the rule itself" that logically gets past the default state of no conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC. You keep pointing to the ICs "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause but that has been overridden by the IC Special Rules rule in the case of the conferring of the ability represented by the special rule of the unit onto the IC (and vice versa). Your stubborn refusal of this plain rules fact is nothing more than sheer stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge plainly written rules.

You are confusing ability with effect. The rules don't allow you to confuse them. The rules are explicit about what special rules are so listen to the BRB and follow its definitions.

Projecting lies does not help your case. Even worse when you are projecting lies about points presented in another discussion not even brought up in this one.

Your explanation is hypocritical. In order for an IC to be even considered a part of "a unit that contains a model with this special rule", it must first be part of "a unit". BUT according to you, this association is separated for Special Rules. This phrase you cling to does not bring anything in at all. It is stating a condition that must already be accomplished BEFORE the statement is used.

 Charistoph wrote:

In order for an IC to be even considered a part of "a unit that contains a model with this special rule", it must first be part of "a unit". BUT according to you, this association is separated for Special Rules. This phrase you cling to does not bring anything in at all. It is stating a condition that must already be accomplished BEFORE the statement is used.

The IC Special Rules rule prevents the ability of the special rule from being conferred to the IC by default and vice versa.

So whenever an IC joins a unit if all that is stated by the special rule is the general and non-specific "a unit . . ." the ability of the special rule is not conferred to the IC and vice versa.

That block stays in place unless the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"

However, the IC is always considered 'contained' in the unit for rules purposes.

So if there is a specific logical clause like "that contains at least one model" (ie specified as in Stubborn) then that additional specification overrides the default state of blocking of the conferring of special rules between units and any attached ICs and the ability of the special rule confers to the entire combined unit.

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule prevents the ability of the special rule from being conferred to the IC by default and vice versa.

That does not separate it from the unit, though. That has been your assertion.

col_impact wrote:
So whenever an IC joins a unit if all that is stated by the special rule is the general and non-specific "a unit . . ." the ability of the special rule is not conferred to the IC and vice versa.

That is an assumption with nothing to base it on. Remember, there are more Special Rules that affect only a model then affect a unit. The Independent Character Special Rules section is addressing ALL Special Rules. Nothing in there is specific to "unit-affecting" rules.

col_impact wrote:
However, the IC is always considered 'contained' in the unit for rules purposes.

Incorrect, as stated above. Nothing actually separates or "contains" the IC from the unit in Special Rules. He just doesn't get their Special Rules by default. He is still there. He is still part of the unit. Anything that affects the unit, should affect the IC as well.

col_impact wrote:
So if there is a specific logical clause like "that contains at least one model" (ie specified as in Stubborn) then that additional specification overrides the default state of blocking of the conferring of special rules between units and any attached ICs and the ability of the special rule confers to the entire combined unit.

What you suggest is removing the block does not properly parse as doing so in basic English, though, nor is it ever specifically or explicitly referenced as doing so, and that is only part of the problem. Who has what does absolutely nothing to break barriers, nor does it include what is normally excluded.

If the IC is not considered wholly part of the unit before Stubborn, it will not be when Stubborn asks, "who as my special rule". The IC is still an outsider at this point, and not allowed to raise his hand. If he is considered part of the unit for Special Rules, then that phrase does nothing to include him, but will consider him to possibly the "model with this special rule".

Therefore, the only place which it can possibly state that Stubborn confers is when "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers". The "they" in question being the unit which fulfilled BOTH conditions. If the IC is a part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is part of the unit when a unique Special Rule states "the unit". If the IC is not part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is not part of the unit when they ignore negative leadership modifiers, nor when a unique Special Rule states "the unit".

Zarrack, I assure you, pretty much NO ONE in person will give you this much crap about it. Show them the rules for Stubborn or Slow And Purposeful (Cataphractii Captains are your friends!) and they'll be fine with it.