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.

Your rebuttal is to take two things that are mixed and try to claim that has anything to do with Joined?

Your rebuttal is nonsense.

My rebuttal to your false rebuttal is: mix sodium and chloride to form NaCl. Now point me to where the Sodium atoms exist as a seperate unit (molecule, if you will) to the Chlorine atoms.

They are constituent elements (pun intended) but are not distinguishable until you seperate them.

Exactly the same as an IC which is PART OF the unit it joins and therefore:

P1) YOu have one unit, and one unit only. Proven
P2) The only time the IC is TREATED AS a seperate single model unit is in CC
C1) WHen shooting at a combined unit you may, as per the shooting rules, only shoot at the single combined unit
C2) THe single combined unit is NOT a unit of GK. Shrouding requires you to TARGET a UNIT of GK. I am not targetting a unit of GK.

2) There is an exceptio for ICs joining a unit making the unit count as not moving. There is no exception stating that, when you shoot a combined unit, you are somehow shooting the two units that no longer exist as a seperate entity.

Permissive ruleset, basic rules. Show permission to shoot at two units. You cant, but carry on!

3) You are complaining about arguing semantics? Your entire argument relies on twisting "joined" to not actually mean "joined" but "mixed", which isnt arguing semantics but is just WRONG.

Not being able to use a special rule is NOT the same as not having the special rule. Possession is not the same as Use.

Shrouding, as a rule, remains. Shrouding, when you come to use it, cannot be used as you cannot fulfill its' criteria for usage; namely that you are targeting aunit of GKs. If you cannot understand the difference between (have but cant use) and (do not have) then you are really going to struggle.

4) I am looking at a combined unit, consisting of a GKGM and a non-GK squad. The unit "GKGM" does not exist while joined, as proven from the words "joined" and "part of" and evidenced further in the FACT that the only time he exists, or is treated as, a seperate unit is while resolving CC attacks.

Which, I would like to add, you have consistently ignored. Mainly because it entirley disproves your entire argument, but hey! Carry on!

5) Troop /= Unit Name. Troop == Place where the unit exists in the FOC chart. A unit of FOC Slot: Troop joined by an IC does not lose the FOC slot it belongs to.

6) Being part of a unit means you are not a unit yourself. This is evidenced in the assault rules where, as you have been shown repeatedly, the IC is treated as a seperate unit of 1 model. If he were still a unit by himself then the entire section "ICs in assault" would make no sense.

To sum up: When an IC joins a unit he ceases to be a sdeperate unit, and joins the other unit. The other unit designation is then {GK+non-GK} and when I shoot at the SINGLE UNIT I cannot be targeting a GK-unit as the GK-unit deos not exist, only the {GK+non-GK} unit exists.

Shrouding negated. Not lost, as you are struggling to differentiate between, but the criteria for activating it cannot be met.

You have ZERO rules support for your side, ZERO comphrension of what the word "join" means and a complete ignorance of how basic rules in the rulebook work. You are making up proposed exceptions (you can shoot at two targets despite having no permission to), treating exceptions as proof of a general rule, etc. In short you are simply wrong in every way conceivable.

At this point, DAR is basically just posting pictures of irrelevant sections of the rulebook hoping the pretty pictures will break our resolve.

The bottom line is that he's wrong, and ignoring the relevant rules.

Give it up, Nos. You're right, but you'll never get DAR to admit it.

Excuse me, but is this some sort of "Threat"

Calm down DAR, I am referring to your image of Willy Wonka, the flow chart following it by another poster and the other image with the word 'pwned' It is not a threat, it is a warning to step back or you might get yourself into some trouble.

It it not guilty before proven innocent, it is the way the rules set operates. Permissive rule set and all

See Nos's post for other rebuttal points as he/I are essentially arguing the same point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My rebuttal to your false rebuttal is: mix sodium and chloride to form NaCl. Now point me to where the Sodium atoms exist as a seperate unit (molecule, if you will) to the Chlorine atoms.

Science commentary... Actually... the sodium and chlorine atoms do exist... but the percentage in which they exist is extremely small.... and dependent upon temperature...

As far as rules are concerned however... I agree with you...

I knew that as well, i just wanted the poster to imagine the basic crystalline structure we all know and love (oooh, blue and orange ) and work out that Cl2 and Na2 wont really be found in there. Thus the difference between joined and mixed.

Unless DAR can somehow prove that joined == mixed (which would be a good proof) they have less than nothing as an argument.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'll say it just one more time. Shrouding is not a USR so no rules about USRs mean anything. USR stands for Universal Special Rule meaning a special rule that is common to at least 2 different Codices. Shrouding would, if anything, be covered under a Specific Special Rules section.

If you look at the image I posted in regards to ICs Joining Units and the rules for "Special Rules" it is titled "Special Rules" not "Universal Special Rules"

It is within the laws of copyright to use excerpts of materials for the purpose of review and comment.

As long as big unnecessary chunks of books are not copied.

Look up Fair Use or Fair Dealing for more info.

SaintHazard wrote:At this point, DAR is basically just posting pictures of irrelevant sections of the rulebook hoping the pretty pictures will break our resolve.

Again, if your "resolve' is the only thing keeping you from accecptiong the evidence, and thus, the actual wording of the rules, stop taking it so personally, and understand I'm arguing evidence against lack of evidence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your rebuttal is to take two things that are mixed and try to claim that has anything to do with Joined?

Your rebuttal is nonsense.

Mixed? no

Combined? yes

Mixed actually means what you are trying to argue: More specifically

Mixed is the act of blending multiple elements into a single unit of mass

Where Joining is specifically:

"To become a member of a group"

Group would consist of "Unit of Grey Knights and Unit of Non-Grey Knights" so "Unit of Grey Knights" would still exist, and as such retain the requirements for "The Shrouding"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My rebuttal to your false rebuttal is: mix sodium and chloride to form NaCl. Now point me to where the Sodium atoms exist as a seperate unit (molecule, if you will) to the Chlorine atoms.

They are constituent elements (pun intended) but are not distinguishable until you seperate them.

Thats not true at all, if you were to expose the chlorine to a chemical that would break down the sodium, but not the chloride, the sodium would still break down (even though they are joined) you analogy just goes to further prove my argument, so, in you're best interests, I am willing to put an "aside" on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Exactly the same as an IC which is PART OF the unit it joins and therefore:

P1) YOu have one unit, and one unit only. Proven

Provide the page which states that "having One Unit" and "Having One unit Type" are the same thing, while you are at it, provide the page where it is "proven" that there is no such thing as a "Multi-character Unit" (I think I've seen that wording somewhere before)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
P2) The only time the IC is TREATED AS a seperate single model unit is in CC

Relevance? Single Model Unit and the rules for Close Combat (if nothing else) so that the "Combined Unit" is in fact still the different "Meta-Units" "Combined".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
C1) WHen shooting at a combined unit you may, as per the shooting rules, only shoot at the single combined unit
C2) THe single combined unit is NOT a unit of GK. Shrouding requires you to TARGET a UNIT of GK. I am not targetting a unit of GK.

Actually, the rules are quite clear that if the IC were a Monsterous Creature, while he is still part of the "Combined UNit" he may infact be "picked out of the unit" and fired at seperately. If nothing else, this denotes that ICs ARE Units within Units. As a part of the unit is a Unit of Grey Knights, you must roll for shrouding.
2) There is an exceptio for ICs joining a unit making the unit count as not moving. There is no exception stating that, when you shoot a combined unit, you are somehow shooting the two units that no longer exist as a seperate entity.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Permissive ruleset, basic rules. Show permission to shoot at two units. You cant, but carry on!

Umm, Long Fangs can, as can a slew of other special units, but thats not what is being argued here. If you cannot shoot at two units, and a Combined unit is made up of two or more units. Then by your definition, you cannot shoot a combined unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

3) You are complaining about arguing semantics? Your entire argument relies on twisting "joined" to not actually mean "joined" but "mixed", which isnt arguing semantics but is just WRONG.

You sir, need to re-read your dictionary, cause I think you have 'mixed' (pun intended) the definitions of those two words.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not being able to use a special rule is NOT the same as not having the special rule. Possession is not the same as Use.

Shrouding, as a rule, remains. Shrouding, when you come to use it, cannot be used as you cannot fulfill its' criteria for usage; namely that you are targeting aunit of GKs. If you cannot understand the difference between (have but cant use) and (do not have) then you are really going to struggle.

K, so if you are shooting at a Unit of GKs, why does it matter if anything else is attached to that unit of GKs, they are still a unit of GKs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
4) I am looking at a combined unit, consisting of a GKGM and a non-GK squad. The unit "GKGM" does not exist while joined, as proven from the words "joined" and "part of" and evidenced further in the FACT that the only time he exists, or is treated as, a seperate unit is while resolving CC attacks.

Which, I would like to add, you have consistently ignored. Mainly because it entirley disproves your entire argument, but hey! Carry on!

Ignored what? The CC rules? Disproves my arguement? Howso? Wording in the BRB that supports that ICs (Which are Units remember) and Non-IC Units they join still interact seperately. Cool! More power to it, sounds to me like that further proves that firing at a Unit of Grey Knights (no matter what else is joined to them) is still firing at a unit of Grey Knights.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5) Troop /= Unit Name. Troop == Place where the unit exists in the FOC chart. A unit of FOC Slot: Troop joined by an IC does not lose the FOC slot it belongs to.

6) Being part of a unit means you are not a unit yourself. This is evidenced in the assault rules where, as you have been shown repeatedly, the IC is treated as a seperate unit of 1 model. If he were still a unit by himself then the entire section "ICs in assault" would make no sense.

No, the rules for ICs and assaults exist as a counter point for the rules for ICs JOINING UNITS (Which by-the-way if the "Combined unit" did work the way you describe, then the second bullet on the Right would be redundancy, why would you have to specifically state that ICs in a unit must follow coherency rules if not for the fact that they aren't a "Merged" Unit?)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
To sum up: When an IC joins a unit he ceases to be a sdeperate unit, and joins the other unit. The other unit designation is then {GK+non-GK} and when I shoot at the SINGLE UNIT I cannot be targeting a GK-unit as the GK-unit deos not exist, only the {GK+non-GK} unit exists.

Shrouding negated. Not lost, as you are struggling to differentiate between, but the criteria for activating it cannot be met.

I'm going to start getting lazier with my answers since you don't seem to be reading them anyway...

Prove that unit designations are removed when a unit is combined.

A Unit of Logan Grimnar, Ragnar Black mane, Ulrik and Nyjal when combined still hosts all the named characters with their same names. Designation is not lost when units join together, you seem to disagree, so please prove it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have ZERO rules support for your side, ZERO comphrension of what the word "join" means and a complete ignorance of how basic rules in the rulebook work. You are making up proposed exceptions (you can shoot at two targets despite having no permission to), treating exceptions as proof of a general rule, etc. In short you are simply wrong in every way conceivable.

Yet you've yet to provide even the slightest slimmer of proof for your argument, you'd provided Close Combat rules and false definition of the word "Join"

join (join)
v. joined, join·ing, joins
v.tr.
1. To put or bring together so as to make continuous or form a unit: join two boards with nails; joined hands in a circle.
2. To put or bring into close association or relationship: two families that were joined by marriage; join forces.
3. To connect (points), as with a straight line.
4. To meet and merge with: where the creek joins the river.
5. To become a part or member of: joined the photography club.
6. To come into the company of: joined the group in the waiting room.
7. To participate with in an act or activity: The committee joins me in welcoming you.
8. To adjoin.
9. To engage in; enter into: Opposing armies joined battle on the plain.
v.intr.
1. To come together so as to form a connection: where the two bones join.
2. To act together; form an alliance: The two factions joined to oppose the measure.
3. To become a member of a group.
4. To take part; participate: joined in the search.
n.
A joint; a junction.

Which definition states "To lose ones original characteristics in exchange for the characteristics of a 'Group'

1) Read the tenets of YMDC. Done? Try again with your post
2) You have still to find a rule which states that the IC, which is PART Of the larger unit, is the Target.

The shooting rules are very specific: you may target ONLY one unit. I am TARGETTING the Unit that contains the IC and the original unit.

I am not targetting the GK unit. I CANNOT target the GK "unit". It is impossible for me to target, without a special rule, the GK "unit". GOt that yet? It is hideously, plainly simple, but apparently you need it repeating:

I. Am. Not. Targetting (A SPECIFIC BRB TERM). The. GK. "Unit"

As such Shrouding does not apply. While the GK will be affected by shooting at the combined unit, the GK themselves are not the target.

Now you are done. You have no argument that holds water, and I am done here. Once you can prove that targetting, joined, and part of all mean different things (and you STILL dont understand the idea of unit type. Unit type is "infantry", "MC", etc. Not the same as the unit name) to the BRB usage, then come back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Read the tenets of YMDC. Done? Try again with your post
2) You have still to find a rule which states that the IC, which is PART Of the larger unit, is the Target.

You missed the part where he showed in the rule book where it says that the IC is considered part of the unit?



There you are.

All settled.

Considered Part of that unit ≠ They become grey Knights.

No one is saying that it does become a Grey Knight.

The joining IC is considered a part of a unit of Grey Knights. Grey Knights have the Shrouding.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Monster Rain wrote:No one is saying that it does become a Grey Knight.

The joining IC is considered a part of a unit of Grey Knights. Grey Knights have the Shrouding.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Try reading the Shrouding rule.

The Grey Knights could have Fluffy pink Unicorns, but the Rule says that it only works when the enemy shoots at "a unit of Grey Knights".

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:No one is saying that it does become a Grey Knight.

The joining IC is considered a part of a unit of Grey Knights. Grey Knights have the Shrouding.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Try reading the Shrouding rule.

The Grey Knights could have Fluffy pink Unicorns, but the Rule says that it only works when the enemy shoots at "a unit of Grey Knights".

And since the joining IC is considered part of the unit of GKs, there's no problem.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:No one is saying that it does become a Grey Knight.

The joining IC is considered a part of a unit of Grey Knights. Grey Knights have the Shrouding.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Try reading the Shrouding rule.

The Grey Knights could have Fluffy pink Unicorns, but the Rule says that it only works when the enemy shoots at "a unit of Grey Knights".

And since the joining IC is considered part of the unit of GKs, there's no problem.

Yeah, but it is no longer a unit of Grey Knights. It is a Unit of Grey Knights with an IC attached.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Read the tenets of YMDC. Done? Try again with your post

Thanks for bringing this up...

Lorek wrote:
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.

What is the basis for the statement. "When a unit of Grey knights joins another unit, it is no longer a unit of grey knights"

Without this basis, you have no debate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2) You have still to find a rule which states that the IC, which is PART Of the larger unit, is the Target.

The shooting rules are very specific: you may target ONLY one unit. I am TARGETTING the Unit that contains the IC and the original unit.

You just said it, the shooting rules are very specific, you are targeting ONE unit which is COMPOSED OF multiple units, and therefore, you are targeting the IC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am not targetting the GK unit. I CANNOT target the GK "unit". It is impossible for me to target, without a special rule, the GK "unit". GOt that yet? It is hideously, plainly simple, but apparently you need it repeating:

I. Am. Not. Targetting (A SPECIFIC BRB TERM). The. GK. "Unit"

So then how would you wound the GK unit if you are not targeting them?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As such Shrouding does not apply. While the GK will be affected by shooting at the combined unit, the GK themselves are not the target.

So now you are saying, that when you target a combined unit, you aren't targeting any of the units in the combination? Hmm, interesting concept... please provide backing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Now you are done. You have no argument that holds water, and I am done here. Once you can prove that targetting, joined, and part of all mean different things (and you STILL dont understand the idea of unit type. Unit type is "infantry", "MC", etc. Not the same as the unit name) to the BRB usage, then come back.

A Farseer casts fortune and guide on itself (it is a lone unit at the beginning of the turn) then joins a unit of Dire Avengers. For the remainder of the turn, the farseer may still reroll its "To-hit" rolls in the shooting phase, while the remainder of the unit (the dire avengers) may not.

If you fire upon the squad, and the farseer is wounded, he may reroll failed saving throw rolls.
Soooo

Examples (involving 40 K) of situations where my argument is proven valid:
4

Examples of situations where the counter-argument is valid:
0 (Unless you count fearless, in which my argument would still stand when a unit of GKs is joined by an Inquisitor, which is currently being argued as well)

Wanna change that ratio, even just a little bit. (and using the most far-fetched extension of the rules as you can)

I won't say you can't, again, I am hoping that you can!

Gwar, Try reading the shrouding again, and show me where it says "When an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights (as long as NOTHING is joined to that unit of Grey Knights)" in the Shrouding rule, and I will accept your answer.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Gwar, Try reading the shrouding again, and show me where it says "When an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights (as long as NOTHING is joined to that unit of Grey Knights)" in the Shrouding rule, and I will accept your answer.

It doesn't have to, because a Unit of Grey Knights with a Non GK IC is no longer a unit of Grey Knights.

Also, it is my experience that people who make long, rambling posts with multiple quotes tend to have no argument and are simply trying to obscure that fact.

My experience has not let me down in this case.

Gwar! wrote:It doesn't have to, because a Unit of Grey Knights with a Non GK IC is no longer a unit of Grey Knights.

Where does it mention this in any rulebook ever?

This is the statement being debated Gwar, rule #1 of the YMDC tenants says "Don't make a statement without backing it up" what is your "backup" for your statement that firing at a unit which consists of a unit of grey knights is not the same as firing at a unit of grey knights.

Gwar! wrote:
Also, it is my experience that people who make long, rambling posts with multiple quotes tend to have no argument and are simply trying to obscure that fact.

My experience has not let me down in this case.

I know, it's hard to argue with people who do that, but I will still try none-the-less!

~DAR

Gwar! wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Gwar, Try reading the shrouding again, and show me where it says "When an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights (as long as NOTHING is joined to that unit of Grey Knights)" in the Shrouding rule, and I will accept your answer.

It doesn't have to, because a Unit of Grey Knights with a Non GK IC is no longer a unit of Grey Knights.

Also, it is my experience that people who make long, rambling posts with multiple quotes tend to have no argument and are simply trying to obscure that fact.

My experience has not let me down in this case.

That would be the case if DAR wasn't directly answering the quotes that he's using. Correctly.

DAR - since you missed it, it was the tenet about dictionary definitions and posting complete ones thereof.

I HAVE backed up my argument, many many many times. You have provided rules quotes that actually contradict your claims, but you are too...obtuse to see it.

I am targetting a unit, the unit that WAS originally a GK and Other. The Combined unit is NOT a GK unit and I am NOT targetting the nonexistant GK unit.

You are confusing, yet again, TARGETTING and AFFECTING.

Targetting has a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY specific meaning in 40k. Please go and have a look at it, and finally concede your "case" as invalid.

I can't find anything on TARGETTING in the BRB. Can you provide a page number?

Also, since either it was never addressed(or I missed the reply) is a unit of troops still scoring with an IC attached? According to your logic, it's no longer a unit of troops it's a unit of troops + IC.

You dont read others posts, do you?

Targetting, and what this entails, is explained in the shooting rules. Go read them.

Unit name (Grey Knights) /= Place in FOC (Troops, Fast Attack, etc) - its really not that hard. Unless you cant tell the difference between place in FOC and the name of a unit that is. Which is it MR?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unit name (Grey Knights) /= Place in FOC (Troops, Fast Attack, etc) - its really not that hard. Unless you cant tell the difference between place in FOC and the name of a unit that is. Which is it MR?

So yeah, reframing the debate because you can't answer the question directly. Sounds about right.

Classic.

Your argument for why a unit is no longer GKs is equally applicable to the FOC, and that's why it's patently silly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You dont read others posts, do you?

Targetting, and what this entails, is explained in the shooting rules. Go read them.

Unit name (Grey Knights) /= Place in FOC (Troops, Fast Attack, etc) - its really not that hard. Unless you cant tell the difference between place in FOC and the name of a unit that is. Which is it MR?

"A Firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat"

The "combined unit" would be the single enemy unit.

Part of the Combined unit contains a unit of grey knights

Part of the combined unit is being targed by the enemy unit

The unit of grey knights is being targeted by the enemy unit

The shrouding applies.

Prove otherwise.

*EDIT* I do however have to hand it to whomever originated the Idea that the shrouding rule would not apply to the grey knights if they are a part of any sort of combined unit.

For the mountain of evidence that speaks to the contrary of this argument, and the little-to-no evidence supporting (noone has provided any in his thread) he must have had quite the charisma to have brainwashed so many people... he should start a religion!

Monster Rain wrote:Your argument for why a unit is no longer GKs is equally applicable to the FOC, and that's why it's patently silly.

Except it isn't?

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Your argument for why a unit is no longer GKs is equally applicable to the FOC, and that's why it's patently silly.

Except it isn't?

But a unit of tactical marines with an IC attached isn't a unit of tactical marines any more. It's... something else.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Your argument for why a unit is no longer GKs is equally applicable to the FOC, and that's why it's patently silly.

Except it isn't?

But a unit of tactical marines with an IC attached isn't a unit of tactical marines any more. It's... something else.

It doesn't matter. The Tactical Marine unit is a Troops Choice. The IC is an HQ (example) Choice.

The Two units are not the same unit (which is what you are trying to imply), he is only joined to it. At the end of the game, you have 2 units within range of the Objective, an HQ and a Troops, so you can take the Objective.

By your logic, a unit of Storm Troopers joined by a GKGM suddenly have Shrouding, even though it is not a Grey Knights unit, which is what Shrouding looks for.

Gwar! wrote:The Two units are not the same unit (which is what you are trying to imply), he is only joined to it. At the end of the game, you have 2 units within range of the Objective, an HQ and a Troops, so you can take the Objective.

Ok, so the units are NOT THE SAME UNIT, therefor, you are firing at TWO units when shooting at a Combined unit containing a GK.

Shrouding only requires that a grey knight unit be targeted.

If one of the two units being fired at (your example being, troop/hq at end of game being two units in 1 combined unit) is a unit of Grey Knights, then the condition of The Shrouding is met.

There is no evidence that would suggest that "The Shrouding" rule cares if the unit of Grey knights has anything attached to it or not, just that if a unit of grey knights is targeted, the effect activates.

Gwar! wrote:
By your logic, a unit of Storm Troopers joined by a GKGM suddenly have Shrouding, even though it is not a Grey Knights unit, which is what Shrouding looks for.

Actually, by YOUR logic, the storm troops would be PROTECTED by the GKGM's Shrouding as the Shrouding looks only for the Unit of Grey Knights to be present, which that condition is met (when a unit of Grey Knights is part of a combined unit).

-sigh- Did you bother reading my argument? A Unit of Stormtroopers with GKGM is not a unit of Grey Knights, so shrouding doesn't protect them.

The same way as a unit of Grey Knights with a non-GK IC is not a unit of Grey Knights.

So Shrouding isn't conferred onto the unit meaning the unit doesn't have Shrouding . .

So it doesn't matter whether the unit counts as a Grey Knight unit, or whatver. Because the UNIT doesn't have shrouding. An IC stuck onto the unit does.

Your example of Typhus's defensive grenades falls flat on it's face. We're talking about special rules, not equipment.

So in summation. The unit doesn't count as a Grey Knight unit. The unit doesn't have Shrouding. And you can shoot the unit as easily as a big pink elephant dancing the fandango . . . Or something like that.

So please, unless YOU can prove that the unit is a unit of Grey Knights, then please stop posting that the unit can use Shrouding, or any other Grey Knight specific special rule.

Oshova