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.

Happyjew wrote:
Logan and any unit from C:SW he has joined have that rule.
Karandras and any unit of Striking Scorpions he has joined have the Stealth special rule.
Apologies if not verbatim, away from books.

Both rules state that "X and Y have rule Z"

I'm confused why one a unit not specified would benefit for one but not the other.

The counter point is because the USR is granted to X and X can join unit A rather than the specified unit Y then he USR confers to unit A because the USR states that if one model has it the rest of the unit has it. Which is the wording of the USRs listed except relentless which only applies to the model that has it.

The opposition to this, and the side I agree with, is that as the Errata/FAQ states a specific unit/codex then the USRs normal application is over ruled. Additionally the statement that "X AND Y" not "X and/or Y" then the RAW is only applicable to "X and Y" with no exceptions granted. Also having an FAQ to restrict one out of 5 USR transferal is ridiculous.

It's not that if one model has the USR they all have it.
It's that if one model has the USR they all benefit.

See the difference? The former is prevented by the errata. The latter isn't at all.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not that if one model has the USR they all have it.
It's that if one model has the USR they all benefit.

See the difference? The former is prevented by the errata. The latter isn't at all.

This. I'm not claiming the whole unit has Fearless or Stealth (unless it is a unit of Space Wolves or Striking Scorpions). However, as nos pointed out, if the intent was they [units from C:SW] were suppose to be the only ones to benefit, they (as usual) dropped the ball.

I agree with rigeld on this one, GW tried to limit the powers but messed it up again.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not that if one model has the USR they all have it.
It's that if one model has the USR they all benefit.

See the difference? The former is prevented by the errata. The latter isn't at all.

Semantics is your argument, fantastic. There is a difference in phrasing but no difference in in-game effects. Counter intuitive.

Just as a lot of rules in 40k are written one way but blatantly implied to mean another. You infer from the statement that they gain the benefit of the USR anyway, I infer otherwise. Gaining the rule and gaining the benefit are the same thing in this instance, as they only gain the ability if X is attached to A either way. Which makes the two points in the FAQs moot save for one of the 5 USRs listed. One of the FAQs is made redundant while the other only applies to 1/4 of the rule.

Sure further clarification in the next FAQ would be nice but its hardly needed.

Having a rule is not a requisite for a model to benefit from it.
Fearless for example. The wording is about who can have the rule not that only those listed can benefit from the rules.
If they wanted to prevent you sticking relentless on a unit of allies they did it right but for fearless and the rest their loose wording does not limit logan having the rule and hence passing the ability on to a unit.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Having a rule is not a requisite for a model to benefit from it.
Fearless for example. The wording is about who can have the rule not that only those listed can benefit from the rules.
If they wanted to prevent you sticking relentless on a unit of allies they did it right but for fearless and the rest their loose wording does not limit logan having the rule and hence passing the ability on to a unit.

Again, not disagreeing with that. Just saying that its obvious to everyone that the exception was never intended. As much as a update to the phrasing in the next FAQ is welcome and wanted, its by no means necessary.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not that if one model has the USR they all have it.
It's that if one model has the USR they all benefit.

See the difference? The former is prevented by the errata. The latter isn't at all.

Semantics is your argument, fantastic.

Yes, I like to read words and understand them without inserting my own assumption of what they're supposed to mean. I find I have a better understanding of the rules when I do that.

 Bausk wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Having a rule is not a requisite for a model to benefit from it.
Fearless for example. The wording is about who can have the rule not that only those listed can benefit from the rules.
If they wanted to prevent you sticking relentless on a unit of allies they did it right but for fearless and the rest their loose wording does not limit logan having the rule and hence passing the ability on to a unit.

Again, not disagreeing with that. Just saying that its obvious to everyone that the exception was never intended. As much as a update to the phrasing in the next FAQ is welcome and wanted, its by no means necessary.

Intent has been mentioned repeatedly. The intent is clear

Sadly the ruleset means that an entire unit BENEFITS from a few USRs when only one model has it. This was also true in 5th - one model with Stealth made the whole unit gain the benefits of the rule, while never posessing the rule

Semantics is actually key, so i would avoid deriding them - it is key to actually understanding what the rules say in actuality, as opposed to what you would like them to say

As if people didn't already complain about SW enough already.

Gratefully this is one of those things that any honest SW players are not going to do and will probably even self-police the donkey caves that try to use it.