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.

No, unfotunately, IC cannot benefit from the Red Thirst. ICs usually give the squad they join special rules, it's rarely the other way round.

I'm pretty sure SmackCakes's entire argument was revolving around TRT saying exactly that.

I don't have my BA codex on me right now, what's the exact wording of TRT?

SaintHazard wrote:I'm pretty sure SmackCakes's entire argument was revolving around TRT saying exactly that.

I don't have my BA codex on me right now, what's the exact wording of TRT?

After forces have been deployed... yaddayaddayadda ... the entire squad is treated as having the [USR1] and [USR2] special rules instead of [Special Rule X] for the duration of the game.

Like my GW Attack Panda Proof Quote?

In short, it says the squad has the USR. The IC is NOT PART OF THE SQUAD AND DOES NOT HAVE TRT SPECIAL RULE, he is only attached to the squad, he isn't actually part of the unit. If he was, he could never leave.

Gwar! wrote:The Wargear says everyone in the unit gets FnP. That includes ICs.

Gwar! wrote:After forces have been deployed... yaddayaddayadda ... the entire squad is treated as having the [USR1] and [USR2] special rules instead of [Special Rule X] for the duration of the game.

In short, it says the squad has the USR. The IC is NOT PART OF THE SQUAD AND DOES NOT HAVE TRT SPECIAL RULE, he is only attached to the squad, he isn't actually part of the unit. If he was, he could never leave.

Emphasis mine.

So if I'm reading this right, the distinction is "in the unit" versus "part of the unit," right?

The distinction is that an IC attached to a Unit does not get the unit's special rules.

A Nobz Mob doesn't have the FnP special rule, one model has a wargear item that gives all models in the unit FnP. He dies, FnP is gone. All members of the unit get to benefit (and by extension, Attached ICs, because the Wargear Says so.

An Assault Squad has The Red Thirst as an Inherent Special Rule, nothing short of wiping out the unit can remove that special rule from the unit. An IC attached to the unit may be part of the unit for the purposes of movement and shooting and being shot at, but he is not actually PART of the unit (that is, the unit that is bought and deployed at the begining of the game). The IC doesn't have the Red Thirst, and cannot benefit directly from it.

It's like saying that because a SM Chapter Master joined to a unit of Scouts has an Orbital Bombardment, everyone in the unit gets one. Or that joining a Terminator Captain to unit of Legion of the Damned suddenly means the Captain has a 2++ save.

That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

Alright. So let me see if I got this...

The Red Thirst: "...one or more members of the squad...the entire squad is treated...." This is essentially a self-buff.

Liturgies of Blood: "...and all members of any squad he has joined..."

Honour of the Chapter: "He, and all members of a squad he has joined..."

Blood Chalice: "All friendly units..."

The above three all specifically mention that others are included, not just this one particular individual model/unit/entity/etc. etc.

So since no ICs have TRT, and it is a self thing only, they can never get it. Meanwhile, the other three are all group buffs.

Amazing how when you put it in WoW terminology it becomes so much simpler....

Oooo you started the topic again without me :-(

I afraid it's not that simple, it's really nothing at all like a chapter master giving scouts orbital bombardment.

The exact wording is...

After forces have been deployed, but before any scout moves are taken and the first turn begins, roll a D6 for each unit in your army that has this special rule (including units you have left in reserve). On a score of a 1, one or more members of the squad have succumbed to the Red Thirst and the the entire squad is treated as having the furious charge and Fearless special rules instead of ATSKNF special rule for the duration of the game.

Red Thirst is not an ability the squad has. It is an event that can befall Blood Angels. If one member of the unit succumbs then the rule says the entire squad is treated as having FC and Fearless.

My understanding of it is that Combat Squads have to roll separately for it, because they are a new unit with that rule. Another combat squad containing an IC is also classed as a single new unit at deployment. You test for TRT and the squad fails. That means one or members (but not necessaries all) have succumbed to the Red Thirst. The rules say that if that happens then the 'entire squad' which includes members who didn't succumb, and now an IC are treated as having FC and Fearless and they lose ATSKNF.

For contrast the exact wording of Liturgies of Blood is:

On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed roles to hit. Models in a Death Company can also re-roll failed rolls to wound

This rule does not specify that other ICs joined to squads are allowed re-rolls, but we know they are because they are members of the unit. Similarly TRT says that if one member succumbs then his entire unit is subject to the rules for TRT.

SmackCakes wrote:Red Thirst is not an ability the squad has.

Errrm... Yes, it is?

It's listed under "Blood Angels Special Rules".

It is an event that can befall Blood Angel

Ok, once more, with feeling this time:

FLUFF ≠ RULES
......................^^^ That symbol means "not equal to".
It is that simple. It doesn't get any more simpler than that. What is it with YMDC these days? Every other thread has at least 2 or 3 people arguing fluff as rules. It's getting highly aggravating.

However, this thread is well and truly done. The RaW is completely clear. Anyone arguing for it affecting the IC is doing so by trying to use Fluff as rules. The argument is going around in circles now and no more good can come of this.

Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

HoverBoy wrote:Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

Gwar eats Fluff bunnies for breakfast.

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

What I think you're pointing to about units sharing "special rules" and having to specify IC's is talking about USRs. The Red Thirst isn't a USR. It is a special rule on a unit that grants two USRs to the entire unit on a roll of 1. The unit is being affected by a special rule that they have. Once they have been affected (after the roll), then they get two USRs. Nothing is conferred one way or the other. The debate is about whether or not TRT is specific enough to affect IC's.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Apostle Pat wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Oh come on Gwar! give the fluff bunnyes a brake.

Gwar eats Fluff bunnies for breakfast.

Best comment evah.

puma713 wrote:

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

Wow, I can't even read the rest of the thread because of this crap you keep spouting. What you're pointing to about units sharing "special rules" and having to specify IC's is talking about USRs. The Red Thirst isn't a USR. It is a special rule on a unit that grants two USRs to the entire unit on a roll of 1. The unit is being affected by a special rule that they have. Once they have been affected (after the roll), then they get two USRs. Nothing is conferred one way or the other. The debate is about whether or not TRT is specific enough to affect IC's.

Gwar! and others say that IC's aren't a part of the unit. I'll bet I can find a post or two where he contradicts himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:That makes sense. Thank you, Gwar!.

No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

The red thirst affects the "SQUAD" that has the special ability. The IC can not be part of the squad, it is merely attached to the squad and has special rules defined in the BRB on page 48. It does not benefit from the special rules of the unit he has joined (red thirst IS a special rule, it's listed as such in the unit profile). The IC gains fearless because the fearless USR confers its ability to attached ICs. That's all that matters.

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

Edit: On a funny side note, while sifting through Gwar!'s 625 pages of posts, I recall him correcting others for typing in all caps because it is likened to yelling and considered rude. Yet you can't find a page with a couple posts, at least, without him yelling at someone. I mean, look at this thread alone.

BRB IC Section wrote:While an Independent character is part of a unit. He must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined unit oves and assaults at the speed of the slowest member

BA Dex wrote:After forces have been deployed, but before any scout moves are taken and the first turn begins, roll a D6 for each unit in your army that has this special rule (including units you have left in reserve). On a score of a 1, one or more members of the squad have succumbed to the Red Thirst and the the entire squad is treated as having the furious charge and Fearless special rules instead of ATSKNF special rule for the duration of the game.

This is the most salient point. There has been nothing presented in this thread to refute these passages.

Since squad and unit are used interchangably, the IC will benefit from the special rules, without needing to possess TRT himself. The rules are not conferred on him as would be refuted by:

Page 48 BRB wrote: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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details)."

This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

puma713 wrote:No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Uh. Yes it does, no he's not, it doesn't because that's not what he's saying, it doesn't because that's not what we're saying, no I can't because it's not relevant, respectively.

Pay attention, and learn to read. A unit's special rule is different from a special rule conferred to a unit via a piece of wargear. That's the point. A special rule conferred to a unit by a piece of wargear (e.g. the Dok's Tools conferring FNP to the Painboy's unit) is shared by the Independent Character attached to said unit. On the other hand, the special rule that a unit has regardless of other circumstances (such as ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and, in this case, Red Thirst) is NOT shared by the IC that joins the unit.

I'll put it this way for the sake of simplicity: Assault Marines have the rule "Red Thirst." A Chaplain is attached to a unit of Assault Marines by deploying in coherency with them. The Chaplain does not have the rule "Red Thirst." Because he is attached to Assault Marines, does he now have "Red Thirst?" He does not.

Another example: Space Marine Chapter Masters have the rule "Orbital Bombardment." If I attach the Chapter Master to a unit of Tactical Marines, does every single one of the Tactical Marines now have the rule "Orbital Bombardment?"

Can I field a unit of 10 Tactical Marines in coherency with a Chapter Master, and use eleven Orbital Bombardments on you? 'Cause that'd be pretty nice.

Oh, I can't?

Well, then, your Chaplain doesn't have Red Thirst. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:
FLUFF ≠ RULES
......................^^^ Tha...

Yeah before you go blowing as gasket Gwar, I said nothing about 'fluff'. What I said is an event is different to an ability. Being shot at is an event, taking a break test is an event, being fearless is an ability, all are part of the rules, they have nothing to do with fluff.

If you like I can shout in large capital letters for you "events/abilities ≠ fluff" but then I'd just be annoying.

TRT is a test models take some at the start of the game. The rules say if they fail then their entire squad is treated as Fearless and having FC for the duration of the game.

TRT plays no further part in the game, it is not an ability that can be used over an over. Any BA squads who fail the test essentially loose that rule.

Actually, Fearless is a Universal Special Rule, not an ability. Don't mix terms, it only confuses the issue.

Once again, TRT gives its benefits to the unit, not the model possessing it. So while an attached IC would not have TRT, nor keep the benefits if he leaves (either voluntarily or if the models possessing TRT are killed) he is still part of the unit and as such benefits.

Remember, TRT is not conferred on him, but that is irrelevent since a model with TRT gives the benefits to his unit.

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:No it doesn't. He's placing a definition of two different meanings of part that isn't there. He's placing a definition because it is convenient to the argument. Where does it say to differentiate part from part? Why does "part of the unit" mean "bought with the unit" in one sentence, when it may mean "a part of the unit" in another sentence? Can you point that out to me?

Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Uh. Yes it does, no he's not, it doesn't because that's not what he's saying, it doesn't because that's not what we're saying, no I can't because it's not relevant, respectively.

Pay attention, and learn to read. A unit's special rule is different from a special rule conferred to a unit via a piece of wargear. That's the point. A special rule conferred to a unit by a piece of wargear (e.g. the Dok's Tools conferring FNP to the Painboy's unit) is shared by the Independent Character attached to said unit. On the other hand, the special rule that a unit has regardless of other circumstances (such as ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and, in this case, Red Thirst) is NOT shared by the IC that joins the unit.

That depends. And this debate is exactly the reason that the INAT council changed their ruling about Shrike and Snikrot. Because the unit is being affected by a product of a special rule and not a special rule itself. The IC is not having The Red Thirst conferred upon him, but is being affected by it because he is a part of the unit that is being affected.

And before you spout something off about the INAT and how worthless it is, or whatever you're going to say, whether you like it or not, people (tournaments included, one of which is on the GW circuit and therefore sanctioned by GW) use it.

SaintHazard wrote:I'll put it this way for the sake of simplicity: Assault Marines have the rule "Red Thirst." A Chaplain is attached to a unit of Assault Marines by deploying in coherency with them. The Chaplain does not have the rule "Red Thirst." Because he is attached to Assault Marines, does he now have "Red Thirst?" He does not.

And I'll rebuttal for the sake of simplicity. He does not NEED the Red Thirst. The conditions of the Red Thirst are not such that the character needs to have it. In fact, the Red Thirst doesn't even make mention of itself as a rule (except to point out who needs to roll). It simply says if the unit (of which the IC is a part of - no parsing the definition here, remember?) rolls a 1, it succumbs and has the two USRs. TRT need not be conferred. In fact, it can't be conferred. But you're thinking the IC needs to have the TRT rule, which it doesn't. It simply needs to be a part of the unit, which it is.

SaintHazard wrote:Another example: Space Marine Chapter Masters have the rule "Orbital Bombardment." If I attach the Chapter Master to a unit of Tactical Marines, does every single one of the Tactical Marines now have the rule "Orbital Bombardment?"

Can I field a unit of 10 Tactical Marines in coherency with a Chapter Master, and use eleven Orbital Bombardments on you? 'Cause that'd be pretty nice.

Oh, I can't?

Well, then, your Chaplain doesn't have Red Thirst. Sorry.

Lol, you're almost as condescending as Gwar!. Not quite, though - I understand, you're working on it Your point above has no bearing whatsoever on the argument. Does "Orbital Bombardment" say anything about the entire unit? No. I think it's pretty clear that the entire argument has sailed right over your head. Maybe you should sit down, have a glass of water? Or maybe we should write this in crayon for you. The point is that the rule states that the entire unit is affected. The IC doesn't have to have the rule conferred to them. Being a part of the unit makes them susceptible to a rule that affects "the entire unit". It is a rule's affect that is being debated, not the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:Once again, TRT gives its benefits to the unit, not the model possessing it. So while an attached IC would not have TRT, nor keep the benefits if he leaves (either voluntarily or if the models possessing TRT are killed) he is still part of the unit and as such benefits.

Remember, TRT is not conferred on him, but that is irrelevent since a model with TRT gives the benefits to his unit.

Exactly. People keep debating the fact that the IC doesn't have TRT and can't have it conferred upon him. He doesn't need it conferred upon him - he is simply being affected by it. Almost like a psychic power. If a psychic power affects a unit, it does not need to mention also the fact that it affects IC's. Why? Because he is a part of the unit.

Dracos wrote:
This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

Honestly, if my opponent tried to play this way, I would argue that since the independent character does not have the red thirst, the unit he has joined no longer has it either. Infiltrators can't infiltrate with an IC, units can't succumb to the red thirst with an IC as they lose their special ability when the IC joins.

The problem is that your assuming the rules are telling you everything you can't do, rather than what you can do. The rules specifically state, "Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit’s special rules are not conferred
upon the character..."

The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)". Fearless does this. Dante's special rules (precision strike, etc) do this for any attached units; however, the red thirst does not!

So if he leaves the unit, why do the rules given only the the unit still apply? Or why would they not?

This comes up with many "buffs" that affect a unit.

Rephistorch wrote:

Dracos wrote:
This situation is exactly the same as Liturgies, Ambush, Stealth and even a painboy. The point is that when a special rule is given to a unit, any ICs that are part of that unit benefit from the special rule.

In order to prove that the IC does not get the benefits of TRT, you would have to prove that

1) He is either not part of the unit

or

2) The special rule is given to models with TFT in the unit, not the whole unit.

The language does not support either of those two assertions, and therefore as part of the unit the IC can benefit from TRT.

On a more personal note, I find this whole cult of personality surrounding Gwar to be most detracting from any real converstation that takes place in YMTC. While certainly knowledgable of rules, he is not always right. All you people who simply jump on what ever he says and quote it as absolute truth need to learn to think more critically, and most of all more independantly.

Honestly, if my opponent tried to play this way, I would argue that since the independent character does not have the red thirst, the unit he has joined no longer has it either. Infiltrators can't infiltrate with an IC, units can't succumb to the red thirst with an IC as they lose their special ability when the IC joins.

The problem is that your assuming the rules are telling you everything you can't do, rather than what you can do. The rules specifically state, "Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit’s special rules are not conferred
upon the character..."

The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)". Fearless does this. Dante's special rules (precision strike, etc) do this for any attached units; however, the red thirst does not!

Holy god.

Let's walk through this slowly.

Page 48:

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 character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result. . .

Everyone keeps focusing on this. Who gives two feths if the TRT can be conferred upon the character and vice versa. This has no bearing whatsoever on what is going on. TRT is not getting conferred to a character. It doesn't need to be. The character doesn't need to have TRT to be affected by it. TRT is simply a dice roll. It is a dice roll that, on a 1, confers 2 USRs to the unit. The independant character, being a part of the unit, is being affected by the dice roll. He doesn't have to have TRT. He doesn't have to have TRT conferred upon him. He is simply being affected because he is a part of the unit.

puma713 wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:Enforcing your own RAI again (after all, your version of RAW is, in fact, your own version of RAI, since you don't know what the writer meant either). Gonna look around and see how many posts I can find where Gwar! says (in all CAPS usually) how much an IC is a part of the unit.

Gwar! is not using RAI. He is using the english language and what is written to determine the rules. It's not debatable.

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

Edit: On a funny side note, while sifting through Gwar!'s 625 pages of posts, I recall him correcting others for typing in all caps because it is likened to yelling and considered rude. Yet you can't find a page with a couple posts, at least, without him yelling at someone. I mean, look at this thread alone.

What is written in the book is not debatable. It is either in the book or it isn't. I'm not basing this answer off of what I think it means. I'm basing it off of what it exactly says. RaI is definitely != RaW. I am not trying to offend you or tell you that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. I am merely stating that the rules say it doesn't work that way.

I will admit Gwar! seems to have gotten slightly upset. I'm sure he's frustrated that the rules say that it doesn't effect an attached IC, but a lot of people say that the IC should just automagically get the red thirst affects just because it's attached to the unit. Not only that, his opponents, rather than quoting rules, are saying that "because it doesn't say that we can't, means that we can!". The rules don't say I can't take your IC and throw it out the window after you tell me it has the red thirst, but that doesn't mean that I can (while following the rules of the game), or that I should (following the unwritten rules of not being a ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

...snip...

Everyone keeps focusing on this. Who gives two feths if the TRT can be conferred upon the character and vice versa. This has no bearing whatsoever on what is going on. TRT is not getting conferred to a character. It doesn't need to be. The character doesn't need to have TRT to be affected by it. TRT is simply a dice roll. It is a dice roll that, on a 1, confers 2 USRs to the unit. The independant character, being a part of the unit, is being affected by the dice roll. He doesn't have to have TRT. He doesn't have to have TRT conferred upon him. He is simply being affected because he is a part of the unit.

The IC is still his own unit while joined to the other unit. The rules state only that he must do specific things while attached to the unit, like maintain coherency, shooting rules, etc. It does not say that he can benefit from the unit's special rules, even if the benefits are conferred without him "having" the special rule. If the rule does not say it affects ICs it doesn't. Period. That's why we are focusing on that line.

Rephistorch wrote:

puma713 wrote:

It most certainly is. You reading the rulebook, and me reading the rulebook could come up with two different meanings for the exact same sentence. What you think it means is your RAI. What I think it is is my RAI. But they're both RAW. So who is right? You telling me that you know better than I do because you read it this way is your RAI, no matter how it's written. Not only is that incorrect, but it is presumptuous and rude.

What is written in the book is not debatable. It is either in the book or it isn't. I'm not basing this answer off of what I think it means. I'm basing it off of what it exactly says. RaI is definitely != RaW. I am not trying to offend you or tell you that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. I am merely stating that the rules say it doesn't work that way.

Obviously you haven't read the Marneus Calgar debates. The choosing between two weapons. The exact same sentence is being read completley differently by the two sides of the argument. It's the reason there's a debate at all.

Rehpistorch wrote:I will admit Gwar! seems to have gotten slightly upset. I'm sure he's frustrated that the rules say that it doesn't effect an attached IC, but a lot of people say that the IC should just automagically get the red thirst affects just because it's attached to the unit. Not only that, his opponents, rather than quoting rules, are saying that "because it doesn't say that we can't, means that we can!".

That's not true either. They're just not open to listening to other points-of-view. It's the way Gwar! debates. He's like an ork: he's right because he believes he's right and there's no two ways about it. Unfortunately, grown-up debates don't actually work that way and if you want to get anywhere, you have to uncross your arms, take the plugs out of your ears and have a conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rephistorch wrote:

The IC is still his own unit while joined to the other unit. The rules state only that he must do specific things while attached to the unit, like maintain coherency, shooting rules, etc. It does not say that he can benefit from the unit's special rules, even if the benefits are conferred without him "having" the special rule. If the rule does not say it affects ICs it doesn't. Period. That's why we are focusing on that line.

Not quite. Think about Nartheciums. They affect IC's even though they don't mention it because they are a piece of wargear. This is the same thing. It is a rule affecting the entire unit, not needing everyone attached to have the same rule. The rule doesn't need to be conferred onto the IC for the IC to be affected, just like the IC doesn't have to carry the Narthecium for him to be affected. It doesn't say that IC's can be affected by other model's wargear does it? Like you said, it is specific about what affects them.

And the rules mentioned below, in SmackCakes post.

Rephistorch wrote:The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)".

Actually this is debatable... The book just says that the rule specify, but most rules like Liturgies of blood and Dante's rule you mentioned do not specifically state that they effect ICs.

SmackCakes wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:The rule HAS to say, "This includes any attached ICs (or units)".

Actually this is debatable... The book just says that the rule specify, but most rules like Liturgies of blood and Dante's rule you mentioned do not specifically state that they effect ICs.

Because those rules do not need to, because the Chaplain is joined to the other IC as well as the unit...

-Sigh- I give up. Have fun, I am gonna not bother with this thread anymore. You all know the Rules, you all know what they say. To claim that TRT affects ICs is completely incorrect. If you want to believe otherwise, I give up trying to help you.

This thread has been reported in mass quantities. I am shuitting down until I've had a looksy.