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.

 Byte wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My thoughts exactly. Dockeycavehammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread has the "It will not die" special rule.

I'm really not wanting to be rude, but to what end do you continue to post? People seem unable to separate what are effectively intellectual internet discussions on rules versus how things should be played in real life. We're arguing here on rules completely removed from actually playing a game, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting actual games should be halted indefintiely for each side to go around in circles trying to argue something better left to discussion beforehand and/or a D6 roll if absolutely necessary.

I would posit that the greatest amount of derailing that is happening in this thread is by people like you posting garbage about people actually posting for what this forum and thread are designed for as if they would necessarily try this on in the middle of the game. I can easily separate the two, so please, could you too, and maybe not post in a discussion which clearly you have issue with?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

And what unit is formed? What is it called? When the IC joins a unit their loses its own unit status and becomes part of the unit he is joining. In my example the Librarian joined the Chaplain so the Librarian loses his unit status and becomes part of the "chaplain" unit.

There is no "new" unit formed just ab additional model in the chaplain unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

Actually brotherhood of psykers does confer to ICs

Oh and Ill look in the brb for a citation when ai can. a little busy finishing up my AT with the Virginia Guard right now and none of my stuff is with me.

I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

 jokerkd wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

Actually brotherhood of psykers does confer to ICs

Nope! Read the statements in the unit entry on p159.
It's very specific to utilizing "models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers" special rules for the penalties and purposes of manifesting the psychic powers.

The unit itself is treated as a Psyker, not the IC. The IC gets treated as a Psyker for all intents and purposes(such as Culexus modifiers), but he can't manifest powers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

And what unit is formed? What is it called? When the IC joins a unit their loses its own unit status and becomes part of the unit he is joining. In my example the Librarian joined the Chaplain so the Librarian loses his unit status and becomes part of the "chaplain" unit.

There is no "new" unit formed just ab additional model in the chaplain unit.

It becomes a "unit" of characters...?

I'm not sure why you think the unit has to be named something simply because two models joined together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

Yes, the rules are pretty clear.

Unless the Special Rule is permissive--then it does not get granted. The Special Rule granting the ability to charge first turn is tied in to the Formation and it specifically grants it to Assault Squads, not Assault Squads and attached characters.

You could attach an IC to any of the squadrons in the formation, and equipment permitting on the IC, the IC could deep strike with the formation. However, that IC is going to prevent the formation from utilizing the Shock Deployment rule if this is done, as per the language in Shock Deployment. It states: "All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in deep strike reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this formation will arrive during your first or second turn."

Only the units in the Skyhammer formation are capable of deepstriking on turn one or two. The IC is not a unit in the Skyhammer Annihliation Force and therefore he cannot deploy in this manner and if he were to join a unit within the Skyhammer Annihilation Force he would prevent that unit from doing so since he cannot.

Additionally the IC is not characterized as a Devastator or Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force therefore he cannot benefit from First the Fire then the Blade or the other two special rules.

In these instances when it states 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' it is not units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force after things have been attached to them after deployment because the game is now started, it is, units that were purchased for that formation. This is the cause for divergence on this rule, this is where the language needs clarity. It is common sense however regardless of the clarity of language, why would rules stated within the formation refer to any other units than those solely within and purchased for the formation.

Never mind the poster above me stated the same thing.

He is correct no model in game can be part of a formation that it was not purchase for.

 dewd wrote:
You could attach an IC to any of the squadrons in the formation, and equipment permitting on the IC, the IC could deep strike with the formation. However, that IC is going to prevent the formation from utilizing the Shock Deployment rule if this is done, as per the language in Shock Deployment. It states: "All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in deep strike reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this formation will arrive during your first or second turn."

Only the units in the Skyhammer formation are capable of deepstriking on turn one or two. The IC is not a unit in the Skyhammer Annihliation Force and therefore he cannot deploy in this manner and if he were to join a unit within the Skyhammer Annihilation Force he would prevent that unit from doing so since he cannot.

Additionally the IC is not characterized as a Devastator or Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force therefore he cannot benefit from First the Fire then the Blade or the other two special rules.

In these instances when it states 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' it is not units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force after things have been attached to them after deployment because the game is now started, it is, units that were purchased for that formation. This is the cause for divergence on this rule, this is where the language needs clarity. It is common sense however regardless of the clarity of language, why would rules stated within the formation refer to any other units than those solely within and purchased for the formation.

this line of thought would only be true IF when the IC joined the unit, the unit became part of the IC's unit for all rules purposes.

However, the rules dont say we fold the unit into the IC, they say the IC folds into the unit

there is no rules preventing the IC from becoming part of the "assault marine squad" predeployment,

we have a special rule explicitly stated as affecting the unit, not just models with the rule, which does in fact "say otherwize" and lets the IC benifit from the rule due to being part of the "assault marine squad" unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Never mind the poster above me stated the same thing.

He is correct no model in game can be part of a formation that it was not purchase for.

which is incorrect according to the rules.

your above statement literally means that an IC cannot join that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

this x 10000


people feel its OP and unfair and that is the primary motivator for trying to find some way to call it illegal.

So the Nay-sayers cannot (or will not) answer my questions? Cool. If you've missed it - If an IC is attached to a Troop unit from a CAD and is the only model within 3" is the objective secured, or can any unit deny it?

Let me present two scenarios:

"Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead."

"First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

The first scenario, Stubborn, we accept the Independent Character counts as part of the unit and the effects of Stubborn apply to him as an attached Independent Character counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and indeed it states that it applies to the unit. It does not specify it applies to attached Independent Characters, but we accept it doesn't need to, because it says it applies to the unit if just one model in the unit has the rule.

What's different about the second scenario? We know we're able to join an Independent Character to either the Devastator or Assault Squad units and that any attached characters count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. We also know the rule states it applies to the unit. Oh, right, it doesn't say that only one model in the unit needs the rule for it to apply to the unit; it just says the rule applies to the unit.

Neither rule actually specifies it applies to attached characters, however both state they apply to the unit. The only difference between them is that Stubborn has a conditional that one model in the unit have the rule, while First the Fire, then the Blade simply provides the rule to the unit.

Why is accepted that the unit is inclusive of attached Independent Characters in the case of a rule like Stubborn, but the the unit is not inclusive of attached Independent Characters in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade?

 Happyjew wrote:
So the Nay-sayers cannot (or will not) answer my questions? Cool. If you've missed it - If an IC is attached to a Troop unit from a CAD and is the only model within 3" is the objective secured, or can any unit deny it?

You do realize it's worded differently? Not only does it specify the unit(something this formation fails to do), but It further clarifies that the entire unit is objective secured as long as it has this special rule.
"A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.”


Edit: you got to love how the person above me keeps adding and underlining the word unit to the second scenario when he rule never says the unit. As if him adding the word unit to his definition somehow magically makes it appear in the rule.

Thread needs to die or be locked.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

Why not, since that is how the company is doing it.

blaktoof wrote:
saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

Oho, you are so wrong on this last part is not funny. It's been repeatedly proven wrong so many times in this thread that you should repent and say 100 Hail Emperor's in penance.

But more seriously, while I have never stated nor inferred that the IC come from the "assault squad", but the rules DO state that "{w}hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...".

So, yeah, he DOES count as part of "assault squad" when he joins the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

You are write, because the rules for the other three are not meant to affect all four units of the same. 2 of the units are affected by one rule alone, and only half of another. Same applies to the other units. Which units are affected? Why, they call them by name. What a concept!!!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Go back and read 166.

Becoming part of the unit does not equate to you gaining the unit's special rules UNLESS THE RULE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT YOU GRANT THE RULE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A SINGLE MODEL WITH THE RULE.

Okay, are you seriously trying to troll here? Page 166 says none of that.

And why should a Formation rule directed to affect an entire unit and carries zero Independent Characters and knows that at least one model in the unit will have the rule, have to make such an infantile stipulation?

It's not like an Independent Character from this formation is going to go flitting about allowing other models to charge after Charging, because there are none.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

An IC that joined at any point "would not benefit", since it explicitly states that IC only benefit if it is from a Special Rule that grants it to the whole unit if a single model has it.

Oooh, you were almost right, except the part where it requires only a single model to possess a rule to carry it to the whole unit. The whole unit is already referenced to get the affect, and the IC is part of the unit. Why should it specify one model, when there will already be 5 models in the unit possessing the rule?

This is an unwritten and unspecified restriction that you are requiring.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it granted "Slow and Purposeful", then yes--the IC would benefit. But it grants Relentless, which doesn't extend to the whole unit by virtue of a single model having it.

It does because the squad receives it as a whole. Actually read the rule. Either the IC is part of the squad, or it is not. An IC is never just part of the unit.

So I just walked into my local GW and talk to the manager and according to him independent characters do not benefit from Formation special rules, according to him that would be really "unfair" to be exact. When I pressed him for an explanation he stated because the formations special rules are special rules and should be treated as such in regards to independent characters. the attempts to try and twist the vocabulary around to allow it are people trying to be way too technical. Now between random fans on the internet and an official GW rep I'm going to have to go with the official so independent characters do not benefit from special rules found in the formation. I have also written gw to clarify and will post when they reply.

 gmaleron wrote:
So I just walked into my local GW and talk to the manager and according to him independent characters do not benefit from Formation special rules, according to him that would be really "unfair" to be exact. When I pressed him for an explanation he stated because the formations special rules are special rules and should be treated as such in regards to independent characters. the attempts to try and twist the vocabulary around to allow it are people trying to be way too technical. Now between random fans on the internet and an official GW rep I'm going to have to go with the official so independent characters do not benefit from special rules found in the formation. I have also written gw to clarify and will post when they reply.

people will say "gw guy statement means nothing, me someone who does not work for gw and might buy their product however says.." no irony there

FWIW, a fairly major tournament faq (ITC) does not allow formation rules to benefit models outside of the formation, they included an errata in their faq that allows it for Rites of Teleportation and grey knights, but nothing for anything else. Although I do not think they should have changed the rules for anything, that is my opinion and I am not in the place to make those decisions with them or whatever. It's not the only rule they changed, unrelated to this issue they changed FMC to be immune to blasts/templates as is worded for flyers, despite it not being stated for FMC...but these are house rules. Bottom line, a major tournament house ruled one rule that affects units from formations to allow it to include models joined to the units that are not from that formation- but no other formation/detachment received the same treatment. They have ruled at their events in the case of other formations that attached ICs do not benefit from rules that specify it affects "units in this formation" instead of just "units" as there is a distinction there.

in the case of these rules 3 of them do not even specify units. or units in this formation.

If it works for Rites of Teleportation it will work for this formation too.

Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

While your local gw manager might be a reasonable guy who understands rules and fairness, a lot of us cringe at anecdotes like that because ours are notorious for ruling based on who spends the most money and rarely consider the ramifications of their judgments. Hence the forum tenets asking they not be considered.

Hiwpi i probably wouldn't do it. But these threads are a discussion of the rules, not just opinions

Regarding the ICs and Ob Sec rule....

"All Troops units in this detachment..." ICs are not troops units nor in the detachment therefor by the 'against' camp logic, attached ICs from a different detachment do not count as Ob Sec when they are in a unit of Troops in a CAD or Allied Detachment.

This is what you get if you think ICs can't benefit from being in units from Skyhammer.

AlexRae wrote:
Regarding the ICs and Ob Sec rule....
"All Troops units in this detachment..." ICs are not troops units nor in the detachment therefor by the 'against' camp logic, attached ICs from a different detachment do not count as Ob Sec when they are in a unit of Troops in a CAD or Allied Detachment.
This is what you get if you think ICs can't benefit from being in units from Skyhammer.

IC's don't have Objective Secured to begin with regardless of what detachment they are in so it does not matter. The only time it matters is if there is a rule that specifically states that they do get Objective Secured. An IC can join a unit from a Formation he just doesn't benefit from their Special Rules which is clearly stated on page 166 of the Warhammer 40k rulebook. I understand where the interpretations come from but the fact they are labeled as "Special Rules" means you look at the Special Rules entry on the Independent Characters profile in the Rulebook.

 gmaleron wrote:
Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

I note you've neglected to attempt to resolve my last post.

Why is a rule that is granted to a unit also granted to attached Independent Characters if at least one model in the original unit is required to have it, while a rule that is simply granted to a unit not also granted to attached Independent Characters?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

I note you've neglected to attempt to resolve my last post.

Why is a rule that is granted to a unit also granted to attached Independent Characters if at least one model in the original unit is required to have it, while a rule that is simply granted to a unit not also granted to attached Independent Characters?

I didn't bother going back a few pages due to the negative nature of several peoples attitudes and plain immaturity when it came to someone not agreeing with their opinion. If you are willing to act maturely and discuss this rather then throw out insults ill be more then happy to participate.

The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So in the case of "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule in the Skyhammer Assault Formation does it specifically say that it carries over to Independent Characters joining the unit yes or no? In the case of the Devastator Squads does it specifically state that Independent Characters gain the Relentless Special Rule yes or no? In the case of the Assault Marines does it specifically state that they can charge after arriving from Deep Strike yes or no? In the case of all three of these parts of the rule the answer is NO, therefore an IC cannot benefit from them.

 gmaleron wrote:
The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So despite Stubborn being given as an example by the rules you're referring to, Stubborn is not conferred to an attached Independent Character because Stubborn doesn't specify it's conferred to attached Independent Characters?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So despite Stubborn being given as an example by the rules you're referring to, Stubborn is not conferred to an attached Independent Character because Stubborn doesn't specify it's conferred to attached Independent Characters?

Stubborn is though as it is explained in the Stubborn Special Rules Profile:

Stubborn: Page 172 of the Warhammer 40k Rulebook:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this Special Rule take Morale Checks or Pinning tests they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is bother Fearless and Stubborn it uses the rules for Fearless instead"

The fact that it says a single model in the unit means that everyone that joins that unit including IC's benefit from it, this is a case of where the rule Specifically States that anyone can benefit from it. All that is needed is a single model, meaning it could be someone in the unit itself or in the case of an Independent Character, someone joining the unit.

Stubborn can be broken down into two basic parts:

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

The italicised portion is the effect conferred, and the target of that effect. The underlined portion is the condition required for that effect to be conferred.

You're mistaking the condition required as defining who it applies to which is incorrect, and is resulting in you trying to claim when both rules refer to "the unit" one of them means one thing and the other means another.

That's simply inconsistent, and not in the rules. Either both refer to "the unit" as including attached Independent Characters or both refer to the unit not including attached Independent Characters.

As a result, given that Stubborn is explicitly pointed to as an instance where a unit's rules are applied to the attached Independent Character we must therefore take it that they're referring to unit-applied effects (i.e. those which refer to a or the unit) versus effects which members of a unit have but which are applied on a model basis.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Stubborn can be broken down into two basic parts:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes..."

The italicised portion is the effect conferred, and the target of that effect. The underlined portion is the condition required for that effect to be conferred.

You're mistaking the condition required as defining who it applies to which is incorrect, and is resulting in you trying to claim when both rules refer to "the unit" one of them means one thing and the other means another.

That's simply inconsistent, and not in the rules. Either both refer to "the unit" as including attached Independent Characters or both refer to the unit not including attached Independent Characters

I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

 gmaleron wrote:
I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

You're not arguing the point at all; I'm pointing out that you're being inconsistent in what you define as the unit. With Stubborn and First the Fire, then the Blade, we've got two instances:

- Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.
- Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.

Neither specifies anything about attached Independent Characters, but you're claiming that Stubborn defines the unit as including attached Independent Characters because at least one model in the unit has the rule (but not necessarily the attached Independent Character), while in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade the unit isn't allowed to include attached Independent Characters because... inconsistency?

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

Um, that's irrelevant because we're not talking about an attached Independent Character granting a unit its rules; we're talking about a unit granting an attached Independent Character its rules.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

You're not arguing the point at all; I'm pointing out that you're being inconsistent in what you define as the unit. With Stubborn and First the Fire, then the Blade, we've got two instances:
- Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.
- Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.
Neither specifies anything about attached Independent Characters, but you're claiming that Stubborn defines the unit as including attached Independent Characters because at least one model in the unit has the rule (but not necessarily the attached Independent Character), while in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade the unit isn't allowed to include attached Independent Characters because... inconsistency?

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

Um, that's irrelevant because we're not talking about an attached Independent Character granting a unit its rules; we're talking about a unit granting an attached Independent Character its rules.

I am arguing the point quite clearly thank you, and I am not being inconsistent especially since I am quoting straight from the Rulebook in both cases which maybe a fault of GW writing more then anything However to answer your points:

-Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.

This does not specify the Independent Character because it does not have to, in this case it could either be the Unit itself or the Independent Character granting the Stubborn rule.

-Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.

There is nothing that exists as a "Formation Special Rule" in the Rulebook, you only have "Special Rules". Because they are Special Rules that happen to be from a Formation, does not change the fact they are just Special Rules, there is not another kind of them. Looking at what is written under Special Rules in regards to Independent Characters on page 166 in the Rulebook. It quite clearly says the "Special Rule" needs to as RAW in the Rulebook: "Unless Specified (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character."
In the case of Stubborn you are trying to argue it is referring to it in the case if the unit has the Stubborn Special rule and a Character joins it, because all that is needed is a model to give everyone in and attached to the unit Stubborn is why its used as an example. Is there anything in the Formation that Specifies that an Independent Character or even a model outside of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule can be given the Devastator Squads or Assault Squads Special Rules? Yes or No?

 gmaleron wrote:
This does not specify the Independent Character because it does not have to, in this case it could either be the Unit itself or the Independent Character granting the Stubborn rule.

We are already making the assumption that it is at least one model of the unit that has the Stubborn rule, and not the attached Independent Character, because otherwise it would be no kind of parallel to this discussion.

Regardless, why does it not have to specify an attached Independent Character? The only possibility is because it refers to the unit and we're entitled to assume it includes attached Independent Characters?

There is nothing that exists as a "Formation Special Rule" in the Rulebook, you only have "Special Rules". Because they are Special Rules that happen to be from a Formation, does not change the fact they are just Special Rules, there is not another kind of them. Looking at what is written under Special Rules in regards to Independent Characters on page 166 in the Rulebook. It quite clearly says the "Special Rule" needs to as RAW in the Rulebook: "Unless Specified (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character."

You're trying to shift the goalposts into somewhere irrelevant. It's obvious I meant that it is a special rule conferred to the unit by being in a formation. But why in this case are we entitled to assume the unit does not include an attached Independent Character, when clearly you're agreeing we can make the assumption for a rule like Stubborn. That's the inconsistency.

In the case of Stubborn you are trying to argue it is referring to it in the case if the unit has the Stubborn Special rule and a Character joins it, because all that is needed is a model to give everyone in and attached to the unit Stubborn is why its used as an example. Is there anything in the Formation that Specifies that an Independent Character or even a model outside of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule can be given the Devastator Squads or Assault Squads Special Rules? Yes or No?

By that logic every special rule would be required to explicitly state whether or not it applied to attached Independent Characters (including Stubborn, which does not, despite being the poster-child for conferring), and we would have no entitlement to assume that, as the rules for Independent Characters state, attached Independent Characters are considered to be part of the unit for all rules purposes.