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.

Blaktoof - so you are told the Wulfen may use it, but then stating they cannot

You contradict yourself. The UNIT may run and charge because thats what the rule states, and the FAQ confirms this.

col_impact wrote:

You have failed to address that the IC never relinquishes his unit status.

The rule itself establishes it - it says he's part of a unit. It doesn't say he counts as part of a unit and also a unit by himself. One thing you are overlooking here is that you have to show in the book that you have permission to count both as a unit and as part of a unit Looking at page 9 about units. "In Warhammer 40,000 we represent this by grouping models together into units" He's part of a group of models, so he's part of a unit. I'm sure you'll want to argue the next sentence provides permission: "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit." Now, that defines an IC as a unit when he isn't joined to anybody else (the "lone" part of :"lone character"), but when he joins a unit he's not a "lone character" any more, he's a character who is grouped with other characters now. He no longer meets their definition of being a unit by himself.

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.

When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.

If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?

col_impact wrote:

The Character Movement rules are an exception to the 'counts as part of the rules for all purposes' so the IC is free to exercise his unit status in the context of movement..

You are conflating things. The Character movement rules state "Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikdrs, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in." (page 100). This is just a further clarification of the "Different Movement Distances Within a Unit" rule on page 18 that says models can move up to their maximum movement allowance as long as they maintain unit coherency; the elaboration being he may use his normal movement type. The Character movement rules say nothing about him maintaining status as a unit; the only thing said about a unit is that you maintain coherency with the unit that you're in. the Character movement rules don't say he has unit status; all it says that he exercises his model type status when he moves. That's a fundamental difference.

EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that the unit can't run and charge. It's just that I find problems with your argument of the IC maintaining his own unit status while being part of another unit, which removes the normal protection from being sniped by ranged fire by being part of a unit.

I can see the other side's argument, but if you didn't move the IC during the run phase (or, you can charge and maintain unit coherency while following the charging rules without moving the IC) you would still seem to be following the FAQ rules.


I

col_impact wrote:Allow me to school you on the finer art of google searching and the well-known logical fallacy of conflation . . .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logical+conflation

Allow me to provide the definitions provided by such a search:
Wikipedia:

Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.

Oxford Online Dictionary:

Combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one

Now Truncate.
Oxford Online Dictionary:

Shorten (something) by cutting off the top or the end

As I said, I am not combining anything, which you erroneously attest. I am truncating the sentence due to brevity and lack of relevance. If you bring this up again, I will call you a liar.

col_impact wrote:At no point does the Wulfen Pack Leader have unit status apart from the unit he is in.

The IC, on the other hand, never loses its unit status. Or did you forget that the rules fully support my argument?

Not the point I was making. You said that separating out an IC as a separate unit for moving is that they follow the rules for Characters, which a Wulfen Pack Leader is. Where in the Characters section of the rulebook do we separate out the Character as a unit while it is in a unit? Where in the Independent Character rules do we allow for the separation of the IC as a unit while it is in a unit?

Remember, consistency and proper quoting to support your argument is the key. If you can separate it out for movement, I can separate it out while you are shooting. Your argument has no consistency since the very rules you claim to apply to this situation do not allow for the Wulfen Pack Leader to follow the same standards.

col_impact wrote:Again, the IC never loses its unit status. The Character rules are exception to 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' which allows the IC to move as an independent unit according to its own unit movement rules and freely able to break unit coherency in the movement phase.

Where in does following "the rules for characters" (not independent characters, mind) provide an exception to "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"? The Character rules apply to the Wulfen Pack Leader as much as any attached IC, and they say absolutely nothing about doing so. If you can provide an actual quote from the Characters rules, then do so. I have only asked this many times now.

Either they count as part of the unit, or they do not. According to you, they only count as part of the unit in basic things and not at any other point, which is false due to the actual phrase "all rules purposes".

col_impact wrote:I did not say that Stubborn does not work. I said that your argument about Stubborn doesn't work.

It only doesn't work if you use Drunken Monkey logic or do things like ignore the relationships between units and models.

col_impact wrote:1) You fail to adhere to the BRB provided definition of Special Rules as abilities

I recognize that the BRB defines the Special Rules as representing abilities, not the abilities themselves (because the introduction to Special Rules states as such). Matt Salmon is my Congressional District's Representative in Congress, he is not my Congressional District or me, though.

col_impact wrote:2) You fail to account for how Stubborn is conferred (since you miss that Special rules are abilities which can confer no problem)

Double False, and you are a liar in misrepresenting what I have stated. If you hadn't read what I have written so many times, I would consider this a failure of memory. But, since I went over it numerous times with you, and since you went through searching them again, you should be again familiar.

Stubborn is conferred by "they ignor(ing) any negative Leadership modifiers". "They" is referring to the "unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". No model (that includes Characters, Independent or otherwise as well as base troopers) is included in this statement other than when "a unit" is referenced. Another model possessing it in the unit does not automatically give it to them without the "they" that comes with the "ignore". Remember the lesson on Counter Assault.

Special Rules are representatives of abilities, but they only confer with a problem. You have demonstrated that you think there are more problems than are written with them conferring, so why would you suddenly announce that they confer with no problem?

First off, the introduction to Special Rules (which defines them as representing abilities) states that "unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." Stubborn does not give out Stubborn, it allows the unit to ignore negative modifiers during certain Leadership tests. Stubborn does not tell you to put "Stubborn" on all the datasheets associated with the models in the unit. It is for this reason I state, Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability.

col_impact wrote:3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)

False, you are a liar for misrepresenting my case. I stated the reason above, and did many times before. For the specifics look at what Stubborn actually states it does and what Counter Attack actually states it does, not what qualifies them to work.

Every time you have brought up how Stubborn works, you use a qualification (at least one model with this special rule) for how it confers. A level of possession does not grant abilities to transfer.

col_impact wrote:4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.

False and incorrect, again you are a liar, twisting what has been said. I have never tried to shoe-horn Special Rules AS Ongoing Effects, but as HAVING Ongoing Effects. I made this distinction several times during those discussions, why you choose to continue to ignore this or misrepresent this, I have no clue. I have a shoe, but am not a shoe. I do not confuse Stubborn with its effect of granting the unit its positive effect of ignoring negative modifiers. I do not confuse Blind as representative of an ability with its effect to reduce WS and BS.

The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.

The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.

The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I keep pointing out that you fail to attend to the full rules statement. You are committing the logical fallacy of conflation

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Don't truncate off the latter half. Remember, the IC never relinquishes his unit status so he gets to implement the Character rules as a unit in and of himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Your semantics is really lacking here.

I am pretty sure the BRB does not mean that a Special Rule is a person entitled to speak on your behalf.

I am pretty sure that the BRB uses represent in the sense of 'constitute, amount to, be regarded as' so Special Rules amount to abilities.

Thanks for proving my point that you are not adhering to definitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Special Rules are abilities per the BRB. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as effects. So again your adherence to correct semantics is lacking.

By itself the ability of a Special Rule would confer without hitch except that the IC Special Rules rule has mandated that Special Rules do not confer unless there is something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).

So if there is a model that has the Stubborn rule in a unit that Stubborn ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit [specifically] "contains at least one model with [the Stubborn rule]".

Similarly, if there is a model that has the Fleet rule in a unit that Fleet ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit is [specifically] "composed entirely of models with [the Fleet rule]".

col_impact wrote:
The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.

Well, the definitions of units themselves show that he relinquishes his unit status. Is he a "lone character" when he's part of a unit? No, so that doesn't apply any more. Feel free though to show me where the rules state he retains single model unit status when he's part of a unit.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.

When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.

If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?

The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.

That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.

col_impact wrote:
The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.

The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)


EDIT:

col_impact wrote:
The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status

Prove this - provide the quotation from the character movement rules that allow unit status all the time, even when joined to another unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)

False, you are a liar for misrepresenting my case. I stated the reason above, and did many times before. For the specifics look at what Stubborn actually states it does and what Counter Attack actually states it does, not what qualifies them to work.

Every time you have brought up how Stubborn works, you use a qualification (at least one model with this special rule) for how it confers. A level of possession does not grant abilities to transfer.

"Level of possession" is something you are making up. Again, your implementation of proper semantics in your argument is lacking.

Stubborn uses a specific logical clause that is re-used verbatim for 80% of the Special Rules in the BRB.

When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .

That logical clause is the thing 'specified in the rule itself - as in Stubborn'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.

False and incorrect, again you are a liar, twisting what has been said. I have never tried to shoe-horn Special Rules AS Ongoing Effects, but as HAVING Ongoing Effects. I made this distinction several times during those discussions, why you choose to continue to ignore this or misrepresent this, I have no clue. I have a shoe, but am not a shoe. I do not confuse Stubborn with its effect of granting the unit its positive effect of ignoring negative modifiers. I do not confuse Blind as representative of an ability with its effect to reduce WS and BS.

The BRB defines Special Rules as abilities. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as granting Ongoing Effects except for Special Rule like the Blind ability to bestow a harmful effect on another unit.

In fact, your shoe-horning Special Rules as granting Ongoing Effects leads to absurd results like ICs joining one unit after another to accumulate Special Rules. They are ongoing according to you, correct? Absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.

Well, the definitions of units themselves show that he relinquishes his unit status. Is he a "lone character" when he's part of a unit? No, so that doesn't apply any more. Feel free though to show me where the rules state he retains single model unit status when he's part of a unit.

So basically you have failed to point to a rule that shows that the IC relinquishes his unit status.

The IC has an Army List Entry which defines him as a unit.



Further, 'counts as' does not mean 'becomes'. 'Counts as' clearly indicates that the IC is merely functionally considered part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for the Character rules) and that the IC still retains the underlying identity as a unit.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.

When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.

If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?

The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.

That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.

He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules which do not provide exceptions in the case of shooting/sniping. However, the IC can move freely as a unit in the movement phase because exceptions are provided in the Character Movement rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.

The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)

The IC could move truly independently except there are rules which restrict that.

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.

Then you should be able to easily provide the quote that covers the question that has been asked without resorting to broken mechanics like the Shooting an IC out of a unit. Been waiting a while now.

col_impact wrote:The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.

Not in argument, really, nor in question. We are talking about a rule that covers movement in the Shooting and Assault Phases where they are to stay in unit coherency unless the unit gets destroyed in the Phase before. Or were you trying to improperly conflate this by bringing unrelated timings in to the discussion?

col_impact wrote:I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.

I am waiting on you to provide pertinence to that phrase. Without that relevance, concern over truncating it is a red herring.

col_impact wrote:The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.

Again, where does it state this in the Character rules?

Keep in mind, I do not doubt he is allowed to keep it his unit status, I question the ability to access it (by anyone) while it is joined to another unit and not intending to separate out. Especially when the rules for an IC having its unit destroyed around it states "he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase." If he is already a recognized unit within a unit, this phrase is 100% meaningless since he has nothing to become to.

col_impact wrote:The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.

The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.

Pay attention. Your claim is that the Character rules state that Characters are separated out from the unit for the purposes of all movement no matter the phase. The Wulfen Pack Leader is a Character as much as any IC that joins the unit. Provide the proper relevant quote to support your position, amend your statement, or drop it.

col_impact wrote:I keep pointing out that you fail to attend to the full rules statement. You are committing the logical fallacy of conflation

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Don't truncate off the latter half. Remember, the IC never relinquishes his unit status so he gets to implement the Character rules as a unit in and of himself.

Again, quote the relevance from the Character rules to support your statement. This the third time in this post, and the fourth or fifth post to ask you this question. If you can provide the relevance from the Characters unit type section, then you can start berating me on truncating the statement. I even quoted you the whole section that talks about Characters and Movement AND IT DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU IMPLY.

col_impact wrote:Your semantics is really lacking here.

And I find yours piss poor, as everytime this comes up you go off in random directions and never provide relevant answers to the questions asked you.

col_impact wrote:I am pretty sure the BRB does not mean that a Special Rule is a person entitled to speak on your behalf.

I am pretty sure that the BRB uses represent in the sense of 'constitute, amount to, be regarded as' so Special Rules amount to abilities.

Thanks for proving my point that you are not adhering to definitions.

I think the actual semantics I am looking at is in Oxford's 1.3:

(usually be represented) Act as a substitute for, especially on an official or ceremonial occasion:
'the president was represented by the secretary of state'

Since these Special Rules are never stated to confer to another in themselves, then "constitute; amount to" is a problematical definition nor does it fit the example used in 2.

Constitute; amount to:
'this figure represents eleven percent of the company’s total sales'

After all, the Introduction actually states "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"

You really have a hard time understanding semantics if you cannot follow the process for selecting the right definition.

col_impact wrote:Special Rules are abilities per the BRB. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as effects. So again your adherence to correct semantics is lacking.

Really? Since that is not what I actually said, can I assume you are just being argumentative or deliberately obtuse? When did I every say "Special Rules are effects"?

The terms "are" and "as" have very different meanings and semantics than "have" and "of". This is why I stated "Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability." You do know the semantical difference in this statement than the one you just misrepresented me as saying, correct?

I said, the Special Rule grants something that it has, not that it grants something that it is. You do know the semantical difference between "ability" and "effect", don't you?

If you do not, please properly research it and come back enlightened.

col_impact wrote:By itself the ability of a Special Rule would confer without hitch except that the IC Special Rules rule has mandated that Special Rules do not confer unless there is something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).

So if there is a model that has the Stubborn rule in a unit that Stubborn ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit [specifically] "contains at least one model with [the Stubborn rule]".

Similarly, if there is a model that has the Fleet rule in a unit that Fleet ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit is [specifically] "composed entirely of models with [the Fleet rule]".

By itself, the ability of a Special Rule would NOT confer without a hitch, as only the models who posses it would have access to it. That is in the Introduction of Special Rules.

The reason for the IC and Special Rules section is so that people do not put the IC model in to the unit's entry list and start granting all of the Special Rules listed there. It is a reminder of the notice in the introduction of Special Rules.

By stating "contains at least one model with the Stubborn rule" all it is stating is the difference between Fleet's "composed entirely of models with this special rule" and Relentless' "model with this special rule" in terms of requirements of possession.

For possession, Relentless can be accessed by a model while not caring what other model in the unit has it.

For possession, Fleet cannot activate for the unit unless all models have it, including the ICs.

For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is an IC.

Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.

So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?

col_impact wrote:"Level of possession" is something you are making up. Again, your implementation of proper semantics in your argument is lacking.

Not at all. I use "level of possession" to indicate one of Stubborn's requirements as to how many models or whom is needed. I would think that this is basic english to parse, which I guess indicates your lack of proper semantics training. And I just went over what I meant by it, as I did in those other threads, too.

col_impact wrote:Stubborn uses a specific logical clause that is re-used verbatim for 80% of the Special Rules in the BRB.

When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .

That logical clause is the thing 'specified in the rule itself - as in Stubborn'.

That statement confers nothing, though. Which verb is a synonym for "confer"? It is not "contains". It is not "with".

Here are a list of synonyms for confer:

bestow on, present with/to, grant to, award to, decorate with, honour with, give to, give out to, gift with, endow with, vest in, hand out to, extend to, vouchsafe to, accord to

col_impact wrote:The BRB defines Special Rules as abilities. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as granting Ongoing Effects except for Special Rule like the Blind ability to bestow a harmful effect on another unit.

In fact, your shoe-horning Special Rules as granting Ongoing Effects leads to absurd results like ICs joining one unit after another to accumulate Special Rules. They are ongoing according to you, correct? Absurd.

You really cannot parse the basic semantics of conversational english, can you? You have demonstrated poorly all through these posts and you keep it up here.

The BRB states the Special Rules represent abilities, not are abilities. The difference is important if you really want to talk semantics.

To start off with, do you know and understand the difference and relationship between an "ability" and an "effect"?

To put this in to semantical context, the Special Rule provides the cause for what happens. The effect is the results of using that Special Rule. Ongoing Effects are the results of Special Rules which last beyond the moment invoked and would continue to be occurring in subsequent Phases (such as Blind).

Ongoing Effects was used (then as well as now), to demonstrate that a unit-affecting Special Rule still affects the IC in it. If it can continue to affect the IC after the IC leaves, then it affected the IC while it was part of the unit. It is a situation of providing a case of precedence, and was explained as such almost every time it was presented.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.

Then you should be able to easily provide the quote that covers the question that has been asked without resorting to broken mechanics like the Shooting an IC out of a unit. Been waiting a while now.

The IC retains its unit status. The IC counts as a part of the unit he joins except for the Character rules. The Character movement rules provide exception and enable the IC to move independently subject to only the Independent Character rules.

The exceptions in the Character rules do not introduce any broken mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.

I am waiting on you to provide pertinence to that phrase. Without that relevance, concern over truncating it is a red herring.

Per the phrasing, the IC is not subject to the 'counts as' portion of the rule with regards to movement. For movement, the IC references the movement rules of his unit type and follows the Independent Character rules which allow him to break coherency during the movement phase and not participate in the Bounding Lope of a unit he is attached to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.

Again, where does it state this in the Character rules?

Keep in mind, I do not doubt he is allowed to keep it his unit status, I question the ability to access it (by anyone) while it is joined to another unit and not intending to separate out. Especially when the rules for an IC having its unit destroyed around it states "he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase." If he is already a recognized unit within a unit, this phrase is 100% meaningless since he has nothing to become to.

You keep trying to provide the 'counts as' clause to all the rules. The IC rule itself indicates that the Character rules are an exception to the 'counts as' clause.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Pay attention to the text marked in big font. The Character rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.

The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.

Pay attention. Your claim is that the Character rules state that Characters are separated out from the unit for the purposes of all movement no matter the phase. The Wulfen Pack Leader is a Character as much as any IC that joins the unit. Provide the proper relevant quote to support your position, amend your statement, or drop it.

Pay attention. The rule itself indicates that the Independent Character is not subject to 'counts as . . .' for the Character rules it must follow.



Characters by definition is always part of a unit and can never be disassociated from it. A Character uses the character rules always as a part of the unit.

The Independent Character however is by definition a unit and free to act as a unit with regards to the Character rules because those rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' portion of the Independent Character rule.

All of this Stubborn stuff is way off-topic and these responses are getting too long and disruptive to the purpose of this thread. Feel free to start a new topic in YMDC starting exactly where this conversation is at this point and I will happily engage in a debate that has already been settled in my favor by the Draft FAQ writers.

The faq for different model types moving differently states all MODELS in the unit may not fire if the unit runs. Not the models in the unit running, but the you it runs. Additionally it further explicitly states the no shooting restrictions affects all models in the unit.

The IC is a model in the unit, if the unit runs regardless of how you move that IC during the run, including not moving it, the IC cannot shoot because it is a model in an unit that ran. The ic being part of said unit, also ran.

col_impact wrote:

So basically you have failed to point to a rule that shows that the IC relinquishes his unit status.

No, I showed the definition for units which said a lone character is a unit, but does not list a character as part of a group of models as being a chacter by himself at that point. It only lists the group of models as the unit. Definitions in the book count as rules.

col_impact wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.

When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.

If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?

The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.

That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.

He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules which do not provide exceptions in the case of shooting/sniping. However, the IC can move freely as a unit in the movement phase because exceptions are provided in the Character Movement rules.

We'll get into the "move freely" part more after this, but your explanation here is without logic. He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for Character rules. You insist that he retains his unit status though, when he's part of a unit. That means, according to the rules, he is a unit for purposes of being picked out as a unit to target. The being a unit on his own is part of the character rules on page 100, also referred to in the IC rules by saying he can join otherunits. So, If you want to cite Character rules for him maintaining his unit status when he joins another unit, then your opponent can cite the rules saying that since it's in the Character rules, those apply for him counting as a unit when I shoot at him, as the rules allow me to target a unit. You don't get one without the other.

col_impact wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.

The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)

The IC could move truly independently except there are rules which restrict that.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase – once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!

That is a completely wrong interpretation of what the rules say. What you have is permission to enter or leave a unit during the Movement phase; that is not a restriction. Hence, the scetion was called "Joining and Leaving a Unit", not "Independent Character Movement". It's complete docswallop to say that he could move truly independently except for rules which restrict that when we're talking about an IC that's joined to a aunit. He can't move freely - he has to move (as per the movement of his model type) as part of the unit. He might have been able to move freely before he was joined, but he certainly doesn't get to move freely as part of the unit.

col_impact wrote:The IC retains its unit status. The IC counts as a part of the unit he joins except for the Character rules. The Character movement rules provide exception and enable the IC to move independently subject to only the Independent Character rules.

The exceptions in the Character rules do not introduce any broken mechanics.

No quotes to support your statements. Nothing relevant added to the discussion. You just repeated the same thing without answering the questions on them.

Where does it state anywhere in the rulebook that the IC can be identified and use its unit status while joined to another unit?

The Character Movement rules do NOT provide an exception to this as I have quoted them and you did not point out where it states this. The actual rules for any movement do more to support the IC moving as its unit type than anything in Character Movement. Indeed, Character Movement points back to the Unit Type rules, which we are going to be following anyways.

Actual quotes please, not references nor inferences.

col_impact wrote:Per the phrasing, the IC is not subject to the 'counts as' portion of the rule with regards to movement. For movement, the IC references the movement rules of his unit type and follows the Independent Character rules which allow him to break coherency during the movement phase and not participate in the Bounding Lope of a unit he is attached to.

No quotes to support your statements. I asked for evidence, you give me declarations.

Again, quote the section of the Characters section where it states this. Also include where it does not affect the Wulfen Pack Leader but does affect the joined IC.

col_impact wrote:You keep trying to provide the 'counts as' clause to all the rules. The IC rule itself indicates that the Character rules are an exception to the 'counts as' clause.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Pay attention to the text marked in big font. The Character rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

So, you do not quote the Characters section, you quote the Special Rules section. You cannot follow basic and simple instructions. All you do is repeat the same thing over without providing supporting evidence.

If the text marked in big font is relevant, what lines in the Character rules section support your assertion?

Pay attention to the text marked in the big font. This question has been asked of you many times now, but all you have done is repeat the same thing over and over again which prompted the question. If you do this again without any other relevant supporting quotes from the pertinent section in question, I will report you for spamming.

col_impact wrote:Pay attention. The rule itself indicates that the Independent Character is not subject to 'counts as . . .' for the Character rules it must follow.

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Characters by definition is always part of a unit and can never be disassociated from it. A Character uses the character rules always as a part of the unit.

The Independent Character however is by definition a unit and free to act as a unit with regards to the Character rules because those rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' portion of the Independent Character rule.

Pay attention. If the statement itself is sufficient, then it should be sufficient. The phrase you keep bringing up keep referring to something else, though, so it is not sufficient. Where is that something else?

It is not referring to the Independent Character rules, but the Character rules. Independent Character rules and Charcter rules are two different things. Characters is a WHOLE subsection in Unit Types after Vehicles. Independent Characters are a few paragraphs of the Special Rules section. And while all Independent Characters tend to be Characters (and should be), not all Characters are Independent Characters.

col_impact wrote:All of this Stubborn stuff is way off-topic and these responses are getting too long and disruptive to the purpose of this thread. Feel free to start a new topic in YMDC starting exactly where this conversation is at this point and I will happily engage in a debate that has already been settled in my favor by the Draft FAQ writers.

It is not way off-topic, and if you think they are getting too disruptive, you should not have tried to post in with them in the first place. Remember, YOU linked the old threads on that subject.

But here, let me quote myself as to why it is not off-topic, since you seem to have difficulty reading things that disagree with you unless they are repeated ad nauseum:

 Charistoph wrote:
For possession, Fleet requires all models in the unit to have it, including any joined ICs.

For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is a joined IC.

Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.

So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?

Can you properly answer this question using rules from the rulebook? Quotes that reference other rules without following up on those references do not count.

This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.

Whether or not an IC gets Bounding Lope is answered (in my favor) in the context of the FAQ.



So, again, if you want to discuss all this Stubborn business, start a new thread, where-in we discuss Stubborn pre-Draft FAQ.

There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.

The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.



So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.

There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.

Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.



The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).

col_impact wrote:This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.

Not really if one wants to show the illogic and lack of rulebook support of it.

But I think it is more that you just can't answer the question properly and so now want to drop it, especially since you are the only one who has kept challenging it.

col_impact wrote:There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.

Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?

Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?

Proper and relevant quotes please.

col_impact wrote:The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.

This is actually incorrect. The Independent Character rule does not establish this at all. Its own unit entry establishes its status as a lone model unit (in most cases), and nothing in the Independent Character rule actually states that the IC is to be treated as a separate unit while joined to another unit.

In fact, since the Independent Character rule does not identify the possessor of the Independent Character rule as a unit, it can only be speaking of the model, per the introduction of the Special Rules section and every legend for a datasheet and unit entry.


Nothing in there stating that these special rules apply to the unit unless the rule itself specifically states as such. And the Independent Character rules goes out of its way not to identify this rule as applying itself to a unit.

col_impact wrote:So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.

There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.

There is no rule in the Character Movement section that says that Characters do NOT count as part of the unit they are in for all rules purposes. The standard for them being considered as such is set elsewhere, either in the unit entry list for the Wulfen Pack Leader or for the Independent Character Special Rule for the IC in question.

Since the Character rules do not counter this, I have no reason, expectation, obligation, or desire to not be treating the Character model as part of the unit. Nor do I have any reason to continue referencing this phrase without a relevant reason, and this is not one of them.

I also note that you provided zero quotes from the Characters section again to support your statement and just repeated the same thing again. This has not worked the last dozen times you have done this, it will not work again. You cannot claim to follow the rulebook alone when you disregard what it says so casually. You cannot be considered credible when you cannot properly respond to the simplest request.

col_impact wrote:Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.

Spoiler:

Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.

The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).

Spoiler:

Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.

You provide a double standard here. In the first spoiler, the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency. Which unit is it talking about, the joined or the unit within a unit?

If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.

If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.

Not really if one wants to show the illogic and lack of rulebook support of it.

But I think it is more that you just can't answer the question properly and so now want to drop it, especially since you are the only one who has kept challenging it.

Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.

Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.

Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?

Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?

Proper and relevant quotes please.

At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.

Remember the rule reads this way . . .



And not this way . . .






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.

This is actually incorrect. The Independent Character rule does not establish this at all. Its own unit entry establishes its status as a lone model unit (in most cases), and nothing in the Independent Character rule actually states that the IC is to be treated as a separate unit while joined to another unit.

In fact, since the Independent Character rule does not identify the possessor of the Independent Character rule as a unit, it can only be speaking of the model, per the introduction of the Special Rules section and every legend for a datasheet and unit entry.

Spoiler:

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Spoiler:

10. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

Nothing in there stating that these special rules apply to the unit unless the rule itself specifically states as such. And the Independent Character rules goes out of its way not to identify this rule as applying itself to a unit.

Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.

"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.

There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.

There is no rule in the Character Movement section that says that Characters do NOT count as part of the unit they are in for all rules purposes. The standard for them being considered as such is set elsewhere, either in the unit entry list for the Wulfen Pack Leader or for the Independent Character Special Rule for the IC in question.

Since the Character rules do not counter this, I have no reason, expectation, obligation, or desire to not be treating the Character model as part of the unit. Nor do I have any reason to continue referencing this phrase without a relevant reason, and this is not one of them.

I also note that you provided zero quotes from the Characters section again to support your statement and just repeated the same thing again. This has not worked the last dozen times you have done this, it will not work again. You cannot claim to follow the rulebook alone when you disregard what it says so casually. You cannot be considered credible when you cannot properly respond to the simplest request.

The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.

The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.



There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.

So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.

Spoiler:

Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.

The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).

Spoiler:

Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.

You provide a double standard here. In the first spoiler, the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency. Which unit is it talking about, the joined or the unit within a unit?

If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.

If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?

No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.

col_impact wrote:
Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.

Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.

You keep spamming this response after I brought up a question you have never answered in any of those other threads. I gave my reasons. If you honestly do not think they are on topic, quit addressing them or properly answer the question to put them to rest. Remember, you are the one that kept trying to counter it.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?

Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?

Proper and relevant quotes please.

At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.

Remember the rule reads this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

And not this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit he is no longer himself a unit and becomes just another model in the unit he joins.

So you cannot properly answer the questions presented. Noted.

You gave no reason as to why it states, "he again becomes a unit of one model". If he is already one such before the recognition provided by that statement, why does it need to be stated "again"?

If "at that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined" is the reason, then the proper true statement would be, "he no longer counts as being part of the unit he joined".

Semantics tells us that he is not being recognized as a unit of one model before this point, and then returns to it at the time specified. Note also that the timing of that sentence does not place it immediately when that situation occurs, but "at the start of the following phase".

If, as you say, he is always his own unit, and implying that he is always being recognized as such, why wait till the next phase and just make it official at that specific point?

The reason is that the IC is not allowed to be recognized as to be used as his own individual unit until such time as the rules direct, i.e. the start of the following phase.

col_impact wrote:
Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.

No need to repeat to me what I have already told you in what you quoted. You asserted that the IC rule itself established its unit identity, and that is a false statement.

col_impact wrote:
"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.

But it can (and does) take away from its own individual unit being identified for use, as in the case I presented above with it being recognized as a lone model unit only in a following phase. As in the case where being shot at. As in the case of being Charged. And so on.

col_impact wrote:
The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.

The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.

So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.

You really cannot pay attention, can you? The fact that a Character is part of a unit for all rules purposes, whether actual or counts as, is established elsewhere and nothing in the Character rules says otherwise.

Can you highlight in the following passage where it states that this is no longer the case?

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

That's the whole passage you keep referring to, so it should be pretty easy to identify it. I see nothing in there that a Character gets to separate its movement from the rest of the unit. Indeed, it must keep unit coherency, which is only needed if the unit in question is a multi-model unit, not a single model unit.

col_impact wrote:
No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.

You didn't answer the question properly. Which unit is it to maintain unit coherency with, the joined or the unit within a unit?

If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.

If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?

col_impact wrote:
Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.

"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.

If he still counts as a unit while joined, then he counts as a unit for anything that involves a unit. When somebody shoots at him, he would have the choice of targeting him singly or as part of the unit. Since you insist Independent Character (a subset of character) is always his own unit even if he gains status as part of another unit, and with the wording with ICs and with characters, the Character rules could be used to say that you may target the IC singly.

Unless, of course, you go by the interpretation that Charistoph points out that the rules say "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.", meaning he's not a unit of one model while he's part of the unit. That's a pretty strong indication right there that he doesn't count as a single model unit while he's part of another unit.

col_impact wrote:
There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.

That's because it doesn't need to. The Character rules are for ALL characters, non-independent characters as well as independent characters. The movement rules in general govern movement, so they apply uniless overridden. There would need to be something in the movmeent rules for Independent Characterrs to override this. The only thing there mentioned is how they may join and leave units during the movement phase. It does NOT say he doesn't count as part of the unit when moviing. It only addresses moving out of coherency (in the movement phase only) if he is leaving the unit. The burden of proof is for you to show where the character and independent character rules override the normal rules. For an IC that's remaining joined to the unit, it doesn't override them to say that he's treated independently, it merely says he gets the movement rate of his model typle. Please qive a quotation where in the rules it says otherwise (and the "counts as" statement is NOT something that provides proof in this location, do don't even bother trying to use that one here to justify it).

Despite all the blocks of txt, the issue isn't the IC status or how the IC moves. When joined to the unit, if it runs, the IC counts as running- even if the IC does not move at all and is on a bike. We are told this in the brb, and in the faq you keep quoting that all the models may not fire if the unit runs, even if the models do not run and do something else such as turboboost.

So yes, models move as their type but if an unit does certain things, like run or assault- then all the models in the unit count as doing that. Even if they turboboist on a bike, or move 0". The unit, and all the models in it still ran for the rules of the game as we are told in the BRB and the faq.

The wulfen bounding lope answer does not specify running and assaulting, it however does specify that the IC cannot benefit at all from the rule. So if the unit runs the IC ran and the IC does not get to run and assault. Even if the IC moved 0" it ran if the unit ran.

That is in contention with the rules of the game that The unit, not models from it assault. Much like you can't fire certain weapons then assault with the models in the unit that did not fire said weapons.

blaktoof wrote:
Despite all the blocks of txt, the issue isn't the IC status or how the IC moves. When joined to the unit, if it runs, the IC counts as running- even if the IC does not move at all and is on a bike. We are told this in the brb, and in the faq you keep quoting that all the models may not fire if the unit runs, even if the models do not run and do something else such as turboboost.

So yes, models move as their type but if an unit does certain things, like run or assault- then all the models in the unit count as doing that. Even if they turboboist on a bike, or move 0". The unit, and all the models in it still ran for the rules of the game as we are told in the BRB and the faq.

A point I brought up earlier, before Impact kept insisting that Characters aren't part of the unit for movement.

blaktoof wrote:
The wulfen bounding pope answer does not specify running and assaulting, it however does specify that the IC cannot benefit at all from the rule. So if the unit runs the IC ran and the IC does not get to run and assault. Even if the IC moved 0" it ran if the unit ran.

That is in contention with the rules of the game that The unit, not models from it assault. Much like you can't fire certain weapons then assault with the models in the unit that did not fire said weapons.

(Bounding Pope, funny)

And yet, where is the restriction that if a model has Run (or similar) it cannot Charge if the unit can?

The limitations against Charging is made on a unit level. Moving a Charging model does not state anything against a model that Ran from moving during a Charge move. Of course, it could be based on the fact that this wouldn't be a consideration since the UNIT is not normally allowed to do it. And if the UNIT cannot Charge, how is the model doing a Charge Move?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.

Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.

You keep spamming this response after I brought up a question you have never answered in any of those other threads. I gave my reasons. If you honestly do not think they are on topic, quit addressing them or properly answer the question to put them to rest. Remember, you are the one that kept trying to counter it.

Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?

Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?

Proper and relevant quotes please.

At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.

Remember the rule reads this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

And not this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit he is no longer himself a unit and becomes just another model in the unit he joins.

So you cannot properly answer the questions presented. Noted.

You gave no reason as to why it states, "he again becomes a unit of one model". If he is already one such before the recognition provided by that statement, why does it need to be stated "again"?

If "at that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined" is the reason, then the proper true statement would be, "he no longer counts as being part of the unit he joined".

Semantics tells us that he is not being recognized as a unit of one model before this point, and then returns to it at the time specified. Note also that the timing of that sentence does not place it immediately when that situation occurs, but "at the start of the following phase".

If, as you say, he is always his own unit, and implying that he is always being recognized as such, why wait till the next phase and just make it official at that specific point?

The reason is that the IC is not allowed to be recognized as to be used as his own individual unit until such time as the rules direct, i.e. the start of the following phase.

"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.

But it can (and does) take away from its own individual unit being identified for use, as in the case I presented above with it being recognized as a lone model unit only in a following phase. As in the case where being shot at. As in the case of being Charged. And so on.

But not all cases, and importantly, the "counts as " clause is not in effect for the Character rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.

The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.

So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.

You really cannot pay attention, can you? The fact that a Character is part of a unit for all rules purposes, whether actual or counts as, is established elsewhere and nothing in the Character rules says otherwise.

Can you highlight in the following passage where it states that this is no longer the case?

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

That's the whole passage you keep referring to, so it should be pretty easy to identify it. I see nothing in there that a Character gets to separate its movement from the rest of the unit. Indeed, it must keep unit coherency, which is only needed if the unit in question is a multi-model unit, not a single model unit.

You don't get it. The "counts as" clause is not in effect for the Character rules so with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit or a unit in a unit and does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes".



The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.

You didn't answer the question properly. Which unit is it to maintain unit coherency with, the joined or the unit within a unit?

If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.

If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?

You are asking me to read the Draft FAQ writers minds.

They made an allowance that can only be possible if they recognize the Destroyer Lord as a jet pack unit in a beast unit. When something is a unit in a unit, 'its unit' can refer both to the IC unit and the unit the IC is in, so their referencing is confusing but still correct.

col_impact wrote:



"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.

"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:



"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.

"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.

"Counts as" =/= "becomes".

The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:



"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.

"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.

"Counts as" =/= "becomes".

The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.

"Becomes" means "was different just before becomes". "he again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't a unit of onet just before he becomes one again. That's something perfectly evident in the statement. That statement tells you right there that he isn't treated as "unit of one". which is what you are insisting he retains when he's joined to the other unit. Claiming he's still a unit of one at a time when the rules say he's not is just ignoring the rules.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:



"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.

"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.

"Counts as" =/= "becomes".

The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.

"Becomes" means "was different just before becomes". "he again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't a unit of onet just before he becomes one again. That's something perfectly evident in the statement. That statement tells you right there that he isn't treated as "unit of one". which is what you are insisting he retains when he's joined to the other unit. Claiming he's still a unit of one at a time when the rules say he's not is just ignoring the rules.

I am claiming that the IC is a unit that counts as a model in a unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. That is literally what the rules say.

You are claming more than the rules say. You claim that he flat out becomes a model in a unit and loses his unit status. But that is not what the rules say. No where does it say he loses his unit status so it's always present - just not too many rules get around the "counts as" clause.

"Again becomes" is merely an undoing of the 'counts as' clause. You cannot undo more than what had transpired because of the IC joining rule. This is all real basic logic.

col_impact wrote:
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.

For someone who wants to drop it, you keep poking it.

col_impact wrote:
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.

But you ignore everything else in the statement by doing so. "Again becomes" indicates that rights before that happened, he was not a lone unit model, or at least considered to be as such.

Does it remove the "counts as"? Yes. It also is indicating the removal of "counts only as a member of this unit".

Your statement still does not provide anything to prove with certainty that the IC is operating and considered as their own lone unit during the time that it is joined.

col_impact wrote:
But not all cases, and importantly, the "counts as " clause is not in effect for the Character rules.

Again, relevance?

What do the Character rules cover? They allow a model with this unit type to engage in Challenges, Look Out Sir!, and be first candidates to be Warlord. Everything else in there says, "yeah, they are otherwise normal models and follow their normal rules".

And during several different parts of this section it reminds you that "a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."

That's a pretty lousy way of creating exceptions which go back and say, "not so much of an exception, really".

col_impact wrote:
You don't get it. The "counts as" clause is not in effect for the Character rules so with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit or a unit in a unit and does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes".

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red.

No, YOU do not get it. It has been explained and I gave you more than enough opportunity to provide where it states an exceptions to this status. I have demonstrated that Character rules do not provide an exception to this statement. I have also quote a line above from the Characters section which reminds you of this status. That they still follow the rules for Characters does not absolve them from being counted as part of the unit. Otherwise, Look Out Sir! would not work for an Independent Character (their is no other model in their lone model unit to reallocate Wounds to), nor could they accept Challenges made to the unit they Joined with. Movement has absolutely nothing to do with it.

So, your insistence on the relevance of this phrase without anything from the section it just indicates you are arguing for the sake of arguing, much like your very first answer to the first thing you quoted, or you really are quite incompetent at debate and semantics.

This the second time you have quoted that line without anything further from the section it references to support your claim since I warned you.

col_impact wrote:
You are asking me to read the Draft FAQ writers minds.

They made an allowance that can only be possible if they recognize the Destroyer Lord as a jet pack unit in a beast unit. When something is a unit in a unit, 'its unit' can refer both to the IC unit and the unit the IC is in, so their referencing is confusing but still correct.

Why not? You have been doing that all along. You have made several statements regarding balance which cannot be supported in the Draft quotes you provided. If they are for balance, how do you know that?

No, in actuality I am asking you to demonstrate in the rules, in your opinion, has any merit to justify this ruling. I have no interest in asking someone to read the mind of a Drunken Monkey.

More realistically, they are not recognizing the unit status of the Destroyer Lord, they are just not taking the term "unit" in the Jump and Jet Pack unit type rules to actually mean "unit, but as "model" as in Cavalry, Bike, etc, unit type rules. That is the only logical explanation that doesn't open the can of worms which allows me to easily gun down your Warlord even if he is in a unit of 120 Boyz without recourse to Look Out Sir! But logic doesn't always match a monkey or a drunken person's mind (hence title of Drunken Monkey).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
I am claiming that the IC is a unit that counts as a model in a unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. That is literally what the rules say.

You are claming more than the rules say. You claim that he flat out becomes a model in a unit and loses his unit status. But that is not what the rules say. No where does it say he loses his unit status so it's always present - just not too many rules get around the "counts as" clause.

"Again becomes" is merely an undoing of the 'counts as' clause. You cannot undo more than what had transpired because of the IC joining rule. This is all real basic logic.

Only this claim of yours has zero merit to being applied and you have not properly supported your statements from the pertinent and relevant sections.

In every case where it is referring to a Character joined to a unit, it NEVER acknowledges their individual unit status and places constant reminders that it is operating as part of that unit.

CHARACTER AS LEADERS
Remember that a unit’s Leadership tests are taken using the highest Leadership value in the unit. As characters normally have better Leadership than other warriors, this means that they make very good leaders for units in your army.

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

CHARACTER AND ASSAULTS
Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit.

All from the Characters section of the Unit Type list.

Character rules do not allow for any Character, Independent or otherwise, to be treated as an identifiable and independent unit when joined to another unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.

For someone who wants to drop it, you keep poking it.

That's just it. I don't want to drop it. The discussion just belongs in its own thread, or are you conceding the debate?






The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red



No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.

So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.

col_impact wrote:
That's just it. I don't want to drop it. The discussion just belongs in its own thread, or are you conceding the debate?

You are the one that keeps responding to it as if it was pertinent to the topic.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red

It does not say that. It does not say, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the rules for characters." Using the terms used, it is more properly translated as, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and doesn't lose the rules for characters so still follows them." The word "though" is not always a synonym of "but" or "except for". In fact, if you properly googled the use of it, you would know this.

If the IC does not count as part of the unit for Character rules, why is an IC allowed to take a Look Out Sir! roll at a better result than the Sergeant that came with the unit? Look Out Sir! rolls are part of the Character rules, and by your interpretation, the IC will not be part of the unit he joined when taking Look Out Sir! rolls since the do not count the IC as part of the unit when you make them, nor do the IC rules regarding Look Out Sir!

Now, if the rules for Characters actually separated them to be treated as not part of the unit as you attest, you would have a point. But they do not, at least so far as you can properly demonstrate.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.

So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.

Again, it doesn't need to since it is already established elsewhere and it does not counter it here. The phrase you have globbed on to refers to this, and you have yet to show where it actually counters the statement that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit while joined to another.

You still did not quote a portion of the Character rules to support your statement, but rather to dismiss it. It does not meet the standards of my warning.

So, where does following the rules for Characters remove the Character from being part of the unit?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
That's just it. I don't want to drop it. The discussion just belongs in its own thread, or are you conceding the debate?

You are the one that keeps responding to it as if it was pertinent to the topic.

I will take your refusal of my invitation to open a thread on the Stubborn discussion a concession on your part. I have invited you several times and I guess unless it serves you as a disruption tactic in this thread you don't want to debate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red

It does not say that. It does not say, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the rules for characters." Using the terms used, it is more properly translated as, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and doesn't lose the rules for characters so still follows them." The word "though" is not always a synonym of "but" or "except for". In fact, if you properly googled the use of it, you would know this.

If the IC does not count as part of the unit for Character rules, why is an IC allowed to take a Look Out Sir! roll at a better result than the Sergeant that came with the unit? Look Out Sir! rolls are part of the Character rules, and by your interpretation, the IC will not be part of the unit he joined when taking Look Out Sir! rolls since the do not count the IC as part of the unit when you make them, nor do the IC rules regarding Look Out Sir!

Now, if the rules for Characters actually separated them to be treated as not part of the unit as you attest, you would have a point. But they do not, at least so far as you can properly demonstrate.

No the rule does not read this way . . .



It reads this way . . .



"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.

So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.

Again, it doesn't need to since it is already established elsewhere and it does not counter it here. The phrase you have globbed on to refers to this, and you have yet to show where it actually counters the statement that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit while joined to another.

You still did not quote a portion of the Character rules to support your statement, but rather to dismiss it. It does not meet the standards of my warning.

So, where does following the rules for Characters remove the Character from being part of the unit?

The burden is on you to show how "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" applies to the Character rules and in particular the Character Moving rules. "Though" indicates exception and you are ignoring the consequences of that.

If your argument is "though" means "and", it's pretty clear your argument can simply be discarded as puerile..

col_impact wrote:
I will take your refusal of my invitation to open a thread on the Stubborn discussion a concession on your part. I have invited you several times and I guess unless it serves you as a disruption tactic in this thread you don't want to debate it.

You want a new thread? You open it. Your continuing to harp on this is causing more disruption than anything I have posted regarding the relationship of ICs and units and Stubborn. At least that was on topic (even if you cannot recognize it), this is just whining.

col_impact wrote:
No the rule does not read this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.

It reads this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.

I am not being obtuse. The term "though" does mean "however", but not always "except". The statement is not completely absolving the previous statement of any force, but putting limits on it where they are stated. As I stated earlier, if the Characters rules actually stated anything that would present itself as an exception, they would take precedence. That is how "though" works. It does not immediately exclude everything before from everything after.

So when we look at Character rules, they do not provide exceptions and place reminders to that statement numerous times. If we are to completely ignore it, why do they keep reminding us of it?

If we are to continue on how you propose, then ICs being in a unit is a completely useless gesture. They would not access Look Out Sir! since they do not count as being part of their own unit while joined to another unit. I could shoot them individually aside from the unit they joined. All of the their movement would allow them to be free agents at all times. They would be allowed to Split Fire without anyone having the rule. If they do not count as part of the unit for Movement, they would not be able to be a "model in this unit with this special rule" if they have it or be a part of "a unit with a model with this special rule" if they do not.

Since this puts to lie numerous other rules in the rulebook and makes them non-functional, it means your interpretation is trash and you do not seek to progress this discussion in to anything but a round where you repeat the same thing without properly addressing the questions asked or to put the game in to a useless mess.

col_impact wrote:
The burden is on you to show how "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" applies to the Character rules and in particular the Character Moving rules. "Though" indicates exception and you are ignoring the consequences of that.

If your argument is "though" means "and", it's pretty clear your argument can simply be discarded as puerile..

I have. Your inability to properly parse terms (conflate versus truncate), use semantics, or recognize other language tying it together, does not mean I have not done as you assert.

And I am not just stating it as just "and" , but "and still" as in "not excluding". They count as part of the unit, but do not lose anything that they gain from being Characters, nor would they gain anything that would violate those Character rules.

The Character rules do not separate a Character from a unit at any point, but keep reminding one that the Character is part of the unit all throughout them. By trying to separate the IC from the unit at any point other than where explicitly stated as part of the rest of the paragraphs before "count as part of the unit" or Challenges, would be violating both Character rules and Independent Character rules.