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.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.

I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.

As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.

My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.

Only by using your personal views on grammar, definitions, and use of the language. If your group shares the same views on the same, great for you.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.

I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.

As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.

My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.

Only by using your personal views on grammar, definitions, and use of the language. If your group shares the same views on the same, great for you.

My views on grammar, definitions, language, and logic are standard.

You are the one who violated basic grammar by overturning the IC Special Rules with an example in parentheses to make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts what the rule says.
You are also the one who does not adhere to the plainly stated requirement to provide something "specified in the rule itself" in order to have a unit's special rules confer to the IC.

If your group doesn't care about the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and actually following rules, then good for you, because you are freely abusing all of those.

col_impact wrote:
My views on grammar, definitions, language, and logic are standard.

Says the one who said lines in parentheses do not matter, and other rules cannot be used to define the rule that activates them.

col_impact wrote:
You are the one who violated basic grammar by overturning the IC Special Rules with an example in parentheses to make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts what the rule says.

Then if I am so bizarre and unstandard in my understanding of grammar, than you could have actually taken my analysis of the Stubborn rule and disproved it. Instead, you choose to dodge it, ignore it, and in the end, not actually address it at all.

col_impact wrote:
You are also the one who does not adhere to the plainly stated requirement to provide something "specified in the rule itself" in order to have a unit's special rules confer to the IC.

You're the one who ignores other rules to make it not work, especially the rule that allows this one to be invoked. Odd when you keep trying to use the IC Special Rules section to redefine the language of Stubborn on several occasions.

col_impact wrote:
If your group doesn't care about the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and actually following rules, then good for you, because you are freely abusing all of those.

While I will not attribute a high level of English understanding on the order of Shakespeare to myself or my group, I am well aware of the proper use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following rules. I am a computer technician. Do you know what happens when you work with computer hardware and software without a proper understanding and use of grammar, definitions, language, logic, and following the rules? Nothing or very unintended consequences. Sometimes I get lucky and it works better (engineers do not always communicate well), but I try not to rely on that.

Now, are you willing to actually address Stubborn using the actual words in the rule, with the actual grammar in the rule, with the actual language in the rule, and how its rules actually state how it transfers itself to all the models in the unit, no matter the source? Or will you do as you have done numerous times now and try to reset the discussion and accuse me of being an grammatical savage?

First things first.

I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.

But first things first.

Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?

1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.

2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.


My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?

If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.

This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.

 EnTyme wrote:

nekooni wrote:
To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".

I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".

But an unsaved wound is a model specific thing, and we're talking about effects on units. In a way, an unsaved wound IS an effect, sure - but it's clearly not targeting a unit.
If there is a rule that targets an entire unit and removes it from play, I'd totally agree with you that an IC joined to said unit will also be removed.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

First things first.

I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.

But first things first.

Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?

1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.

2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.


My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?

If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.

This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.

Same crap attempting to reset the argument without actually addressing the challenge while ignoring anything else said. Get a new routine.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

First things first.

I am very aware that you want to zoom past the point in your argument where you are willfully ignoring and rewriting the BRB.

But first things first.

Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?

1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.

2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.


My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?

If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.

This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.

Same crap attempting to reset the argument without actually addressing the challenge while ignoring anything else said. Get a new routine.

The "crap" that has been uncovered is your argument.

As I have shown, the BRB tells us plain as day that Stubborn confers. You have argued that Stubborn doesn't confer.

Also, the BRB makes a specific requirement that there be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC in order for the special rule to confer to the IC. You repeatedly ignore that plainly stated requirement in your argument.

Your argument is clearly out of bounds of RAW and can be filed away as a house rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

nekooni wrote:
To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".

I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".

But an unsaved wound is a model specific thing, and we're talking about effects on units. In a way, an unsaved wound IS an effect, sure - but it's clearly not targeting a unit.
If there is a rule that targets an entire unit and removes it from play, I'd totally agree with you that an IC joined to said unit will also be removed.

The Formation rules make it clear that rules on the Formation sheet are special rules that the units gain.


You actually have to prove that something is an effect applied from a unit's or model's special rule. Otherwise its a special rule of the unit that the unit has from being in the Formation (per the Formation rule).

Curse of the Wulfen is a good example of a special rule of the Wulfen that applies an effect on other units.

How about everyone calms down a bit, especially Charistoph?

At this point I can't follow your posts anymore since all the twoof you are doing is throwing back and forth utterly content free verbal spears.

In order to return to a proper discussion would the two of you be so kind as to simply state your actual reasoning for your stance? Preferably without quoting each other - just state it in as few words and as concise as possible.

Or move it to a private discussion? At least restrict yourself to one thread, that should help immensely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

You actually have to prove that something is an effect applied from a unit's or model's special rule. Otherwise its a special rule of the unit that the unit has from being in the Formation (per the Formation rule).

I did that in detail in the post preceding the quoted post, right there: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808 - I assume you missed it?

nekooni wrote:
(A)ll the two of you are doing is throwing back and forth utterly content free verbal spears.

And if it doesn't stop of its own accord, then I'll have to make it stop.

 Janthkin wrote:

nekooni wrote:
(A)ll the two of you are doing is throwing back and forth utterly content free verbal spears.

And if it doesn't stop of its own accord, then I'll have to make it stop.

Might as well lock them both.

 karlosovic wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.

Oops, I apologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?

I just downloaded the FAQs, but then I figured I'd buy the new "Wulfen Edition" since that's the newest version of the codex, and it incorporates some new rules.

Anyway.... Rage is back to not specifying Bloodclaws only, so I guess the Wolf Guard Pack Leader will certainly get it, since he's part of the unit on the data sheet, but by the arguments in this thread, any IC who joins the unit will also gain Rage

Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.

They're the same thing. There's no difference.

What one earth would a "Unit's Special Rules" be, if not "Special Rules granted at the unit level?" It's the same thing.

I'm done with this argument. That's the first actual argument you've even tried to make in ages, and it was essentially the same as saying "His name is not Bob, Bob is just his name""

 karlosovic wrote:
Anyway.... Rage is back to not specifying Bloodclaws only, so I guess the Wolf Guard Pack Leader will certainly get it, since he's part of the unit on the data sheet, but by the arguments in this thread, any IC who joins the unit will also gain Rage

Not quite. Rage's benefits are not targeting the unit, only the model. Indeed, "unit" of any type is never mentioned in this whatsoever. Therefore, only if Rage is listed on the datasheet the model comes from will it affect the model. ICs of any type would not gain Rage just because they joined Blood Claws.

Note, this would be different if they had a unique rule that gave the unit Rage.

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that isn't the argument, and you know it. Difference between a unit special rules, and rules that are special and are granted at the unit level. It's a subtle difference.

They're the same thing. There's no difference.

What one earth would a "Unit's Special Rules" be, if not "Special Rules granted at the unit level?" It's the same thing.

I'm done with this argument. That's the first actual argument you've even tried to make in ages, and it was essentially the same as saying "His name is not Bob, Bob is just his name""

Unit special rules are given to the models in the unit. Have you read what the section "Special Rules" is defined as on a data sheet?

You then have rules such as these which are given to the unit themselves

So do you understand the difference now? You may wish to check out the definition of Special Rules when listed on a data sheet before replying this time - for example page 46 of the space wolf codex, item 10. Note the distinction between models and units.

Malathrim wrote:
Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?

Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?

Yes to both. The Grey Hunters are the requirement of the formation, and their codex entry let's them take a DT.

The UNIT that can run and charge is the TWC(if the Wold Lord is within 12"). ICs become part of that unit when they join it. It's still a TWC UNIT, and therefore can run and charge in the same turn. No rules need to be conferred, so nothing has to or can be questioned.

The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.

Sometimes I wish there was a way to prevent people who have reading comprehension challenges to participate in rules discussions.

I totally get it when some of these people come and ask a question such as the OP's, I just don't get it when those who understand even less come to answer it.

Grey Hunters are permitted to take transport in their codex entry, do you have any rules saying they can't because they're in a Deathpack formation ? Nope, so they work as stated.

Is the TWC any unit in the deathpack formation ? Yes, so they run and charge if they want to.

WRT clarifications, both ETC and ITC have random houserules that directly contradict RAW which are perfectly clear, they should never be mentioned in RAW discussions.

LinkXx wrote:
The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.

But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.

So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

LinkXx wrote:
The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.

But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.

So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.

Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.

col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?

We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

LinkXx wrote:
The ABILITY to run and charge in the same turn is NOT a Special Rule as per BRB.

But it is according to the datasheet legends and the subject it is under for the Formation listing. Indeed, the BRB does not state that all Special Rules are listed in its pages, just the most common and universal ones. Many units have Fleet across most armies, but only one Faction carries Reanimation Protocols, and Hunters from Hyperspace is only useful to Deathmarks.

So, too, is this ability/Special Rule that allows to Run and Charge in the same turn restricted to these bounds.

Yup. It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.

Define the specific wording in stubborn that specifies "IC". Note I want you to actually SPECIFY the wording that SPECIFIES the IC. Note the word "specify", please use it correctly.

Happyjew wrote:col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?

We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Define the specific wording in stubborn that specifies "IC". Note I want you to actually SPECIFY the wording that SPECIFIES the IC. Note the word "specify", please use it correctly.

Do you seriously think his answer has changed after all this time? His last post was at least accurate, even if the sub-context behind it may have seemed to be accusatory.

It would be great if he could ever answer this question with specific wording. Col has ducked this every time.

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?

We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?

The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to the IC.



Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.

Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.

Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.

Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?

We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?

The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to the IC.

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.

Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.

Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.

Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.

Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.

Yes we know it has to specify. That is why you have been asked what the exact wording that specifies it confers is. If it is "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" than by your own admission, Counter Attack confers to an IC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It would be great if he could ever answer this question with specific wording. Col has ducked this every time.

I have never ducked anything and have always been forthcoming about my argument and very specific in my wording.




If someone examines your posts, on the other hand, they will find you making almost exclusively content-less posts. And I don't think you have every actually articulated a complete argument in any thread. Just quips or attempts to cast aspersions on others arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, what wording in Stubborn, specifically allows it it to confer to an IC?

We know that Stubborn specifically allows it (the rules tell us as much), but what is the specific wording?

The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not confer from the unit to the IC.

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.

Special rules include specifications that logically scope around this restriction.

Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" Fleet does not confer from the unit with Fleet to IC.

Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". Stubborn does confer from a unit with Stubborn to the IC.

Counter-Attack - "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit". The Counter-Attack ability and the +1 attack does not confer from the unit with Counter-Attack to the IC.

Yes we know it has to specify. That is why you have been asked what the exact wording that specifies it confers is. If it is "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" than by your own admission, Counter Attack confers to an IC.

There is nothing magic about that phrase. It is a scoping mechanism. When you actually read the Counter-Attack special rule (and I recommend you read the rule) you will note that it is not the clause that is actually scoping the ability. "Every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit" is the clause that is actually scoping the ability.

Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.

Here I will make it real easy for you . . .



What's the difference between that statement and this one?


Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?

col_impact wrote:

Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.

Here I will make it real easy for you . . .

Spoiler:

Counter-attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

What's the difference between that statement and this one?

Spoiler:

If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?

Well that's one easy question: Because GW sucks at writing rules.

No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").

If you have an IC with CA join a regular unit without CA, it will be "a unit with CA", but only the IC will benefit - and it is also "a unit which contains at least one model with CA".

PS: Why hasn't insaniak closed this as well?

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It would be great if he could ever answer this question with specific wording. Col has ducked this every time.

I have never ducked anything and have always been forthcoming about my argument and very specific in my wording.

Actually, you have ducked responses to your statements just by retreading the same territory in an attempt to restart the argument.

col_impact wrote:There is nothing magic about that phrase. It is a scoping mechanism. When you actually read the Counter-Attack special rule (and I recommend you read the rule) you will note that it is not the clause that is actually scoping the ability. "Every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit" is the clause that is actually scoping the ability.

Yeah, I remember telling you it isn't magic.

col_impact wrote:Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.

Here I will make it real easy for you . . .

Spoiler:

Counter-attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

What's the difference between that statement and this one?

Spoiler:

If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

Simple. One allows an IC with the Counter-Attack rule to be able to take advantage of of the Special Rule when joined to a unit without it, while the other requires the unit to actually have the rule before it gets charged in order for any model to benefit.

col_impact wrote:Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?

It allows a unit without the rule to benefit from it if an IC joins the unit. It also covers the contingency of a unit with the special rule to be identified, even if an IC joins them. It is a 2-way condition, but only if identified as the target.

nekooni wrote:No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").

There is a difference. A unit without CA joined by an IC with CA while requiring the unit to have CA, will not activate. Such is the case if a Formation rule that allows the unit to do something, and the Formation has an IC joins a unit from another detachment.

However, in the case of how it stands, the IC with the rule can still benefit from the rule, even if they rest of the unit does not have it.

 Charistoph wrote:

Yeah, I remember telling you it isn't magic.

col_impact wrote:Now go and actually read the rule and tell me what "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is actually scoping in the Counter-Attack rule.

Here I will make it real easy for you . . .

Spoiler:

Counter-attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

What's the difference between that statement and this one?

Spoiler:

If a unit with the Counter-Attack special rule is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase. If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.

Simple. One allows an IC with the Counter-Attack rule to be able to take advantage of of the Special Rule when joined to a unit without it, while the other requires the unit to actually have the rule before it gets charged in order for any model to benefit.

col_impact wrote:Why did the BRB make the additional specification of "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule"? What did this do?

It allows a unit without the rule to gain the ability if an IC joins the unit. It also covers the contingency of a unit with the special rule to be identified, even if an IC joins them. It is a 2-way condition, but only if identified as the target.

nekooni wrote:No, seriously - there is no difference between "a unit with Counter-Attack" and "a unit with contains at least one model with Counter-Attack". The key difference is elsewhere: "every model with the CA SR gets +1 Attack" versus "the unit gets is allowed to charge". The scope there is clearly different: "every model with that rule" will only affect those, while "the unit" will affect all models (="the unit").

There is a difference. A unit without CA joined by an IC with CA while requiring the unit to have CA, will not activate. Such is the case if a Formation rule that allows the unit to do something, and the Formation has an IC joins a unit from another detachment.

However, in the case of how it stands, the IC with the rule can still benefit from the rule, even if they rest of the unit does not have it.

You are mostly correct Charistophe. The clause is not meaningless as Nekooni's analysis would have it and the clause when present is doing something very specific. It is a scoping mechanism that when present allows the rule to actually see models attached to the unit.

"A unit with the special rule" will not see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

"A unit that contains at least one model with the special rule" will, on the other hand, see an IC with the special rule that is attached to a unit without the special rule.

Remember, special rules are abilities and we are dealing with abilities being conferred from the unit with the special rule to the attached IC and vice versa.

Special rules are generally written along the pattern of 'Subject - Ability'. The special rule defines who has the ability and then describes the ability (e.g. when, where, how it works).

A special rule that is scoped to "see" attached models will confer the ability of the special rule onto any ICs attached to the unit.



Consider these two versions of Stubborn.

1)


This version will "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.

This version will "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be the entire unit having the Stubborn ability.

2)


This version will not "see" an IC with the special rule attached to a unit without the special rule. The result will be the unit not having the Stubborn ability.

This version will not "see" an IC without the special rule attached to a unit with the special rule. The result will be just the unit having the Stubborn ability and no ability being conferred to the IC.


Remember, the IC Special Rules rule has set it so that the special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC and vice versa.

However, a scoping mechanism like " a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" can expand the subject of the ability to include models attached to the unit.


#################################################################################


The big point of departure between my argument and Charistophe's argument is that he is casting special rules as "Ongoing Effects" and trying to use those rules instead of the IC Special Rules rule.

The problem with Charistophe's argument is that it is not supported by the rules.

Special Rules are Special Rules and there is a whole section defining them and listing them.

Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Ongoing Effects are things like Pinned, Gone to Ground, Falling Back, etc. Ongoing Effects can include the negative effects of Special Rules like Blind and Soul Blaze but Ongoing Effects are not themselves Special Rules.

The rules tell us that special rules are abilities and that the abilities are conferred when a unit with the special rule is joined by an IC without the special rule if there is "something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" and that something specified in the rule itself is the scoping clause that sees the IC.

I don't expect Charistophe to now suddenly admit I am right. He is too entrenched in his argument.

However, I will point out that my argument is the one that is supported by the rules.

I adhere to the IC Special Rules rule. [Charistophe wants us to use the rules for ICs and Ongoing Effects instead]

I adhere to the BRB that defines special rules as abilities. [Charistophe invents his own terminology to go with his use of the Ongoing Effects rules]

I am able to account for Stubborn actually being conferred from a unit with Stubborn to an IC without Stubborn. [Charistophe can't account for Stubborn actually being conferred, so either he is wrong, or the BRB is wrong, since the BRB directly tells us that Stubborn confers from a unit with Stubborn to an IC without Stubborn]

I am able to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the Stubborn special that allows the conferring to happen from the unit with Stubborn to the IC without Stubborn. As indicated above, the scoping mechanism in the Stubborn accomplishes it. [ Charistophe is unable to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so once again either he is wrong or the BRB is wrong since the BRB directly tells us that Stubborn confers by virtue of "something specified in the rule itself"]

So basically my argument is the one that is actually supported by the rules.

Col - an amazingly sweeping statement to make , you're not going to over generalise now, surely?

Again. Specify the exact words that specify the IC. For the umpteenth time of asking. Show how "contains at least..." Is more specific, when it comes to an IC , that "a unit". Please show how you differentiate between special rules granted to models within a it, granted on a units data sheet - the special rules that are specified by the IC rule you love so much - and special rules that a unit is granted, at the unit level.

Or don't. Again. Given you yet again failed to answer either happy or myself the ,sat few times this was asked

Talk about content less.