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.

Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment

this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.

So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.

Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.

And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.

it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.

The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.

The IC does not benefit.

The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)

I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.

If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.

However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?

so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?

or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?

Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment

this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.
So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.

What he has reverted to, immature personal attacks as his argument has been proven false, you will learn to laugh at it.

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.

Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.

And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.

it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.

The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.

The IC does not benefit.

The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)

I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.

If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.

However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?

so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?

or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?

Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.

Exactly.

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.

For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.

The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".

This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.

Are you kidding?

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

good thing it doesn't say that , it says (Verbatim) "Vanguard Veteran Squads" Which is the unit. When you point to a unit and ask what it is I will say, "Vanguard Veteran Squad". The IC is a part of that unit.

Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes,

So where is the confusion.

Here is how it works.

The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes

Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.

This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit.

They also ruled that invisibility doesn't make you snap fire, but that doesn't mean its the rule. They are [b] House rules[b] They make them to balance their tourney.
ETC. Rules that the ICs benefit.

 gmaleron wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment

this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.
So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.

What he has reverted to, immature personal attacks as his argument has been proven false, you will learn to laugh at it.

No he won't.

Everyone here is too stubborn about their position so any argument is fruitless.

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.

For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.

The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".

This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.

Are you kidding?

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

good thing it doesn't say that , it says (Verbatim) "Vanguard Veteran Squads" Which is the unit. When you point to a unit and ask what it is I will say, "Vanguard Veteran Squad". The IC is a part of that unit.

Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes,

So where is the confusion.

Here is how it works.

The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes

Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.

This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit.

They also ruled that invisibility doesn't make you snap fire, but that doesn't mean its the rule. They are [b] House rules[b] They make them to balance their tourney.
ETC. Rules that the ICs benefit.

I feel like your confusing the word Squad with the Rules word Unit.

Squad has no meaning in the game.

Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.

This is a fundamental part of the game.

If Dante joins Draigo, are they a BA or GK unit?

Simply, It depends on who joined who.
This is important, for rules that affect BA, or GK units.

If Dante joined Draigo, It would be a GK unit, a Kaldor Draigo unit, consisting of 2 models, both ICs Dante and Draigo.

This is one of the principles of ICs

harkequin wrote:

Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes
Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.

-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike
-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters
-Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.

He still cannot join them and benefit, not matter how much you want them to.

Squad has no meaning in the game.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

And you are wrong.

From the BRB. Verbatim.
"UNITS
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads."

Page 8 of the rulebook.

Exactly. 

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.

Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

harkequin wrote:

Squad has no meaning in the game.

You are being deliberately obtuse.
And you are wrong.
From the BRB. Verbatim.
"UNITS
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads."
Page 8 of the rulebook.

A lot of that obtuse going on around here, it still doesn't effect or change the fact that an IC cannot join a unit and get their special rule unless the special rule includes the IC in some way.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Exactly.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

The Special Rule in Question "On target" specifically mentions the Vanguard Veteran Squad (which according to the Army List Entry is a minimum of x5 Vanguard Veterans) and since the Special Rule does not mention the IC or the fact that any model that joins the unit can benefit from the rule the Chaplin cannot get the On Target Special Rule.

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes
Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.

-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike
-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters
-Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.

He still cannot join them and benefit, not matter how much you want them to.

Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment. And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

How does it violate the rules when there is a clear clause in Battle Brothers that states that as along as they are Battle Brothers IC's can join units in other Detachments? Also it mentions a similar thing under Factions. And I do recognize what you are saying but the IC still does not ignore the rules found for Independent Characters listed on page 166 which states that the Special Rule in some way shape or form confers to either the IC or the entire unit. It is the Special Rule itself that decides if he receives a benefit or not.

Battle Brothers does not address it all, actually, though it could be considered a more Advanced Rule, I suppose.

It still violates the condition for the IC to be counted as part of the unit for these purposes.

And yes, you keep ignoring the exception, or at the least, how the exception works, which is the same thing. I've gone over it twice in this thread, go back and review it if you want to actually understand what I mean.

blaktoof wrote:so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?

or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?

I know I have addressed this point to you before in other threads and you ignored it then, so will continue to ignore it now.. I have also addressed it several time in this thread. Nor have you provided any support for your baseless opnion.

There are four levels of interaction in the game, model, unit, Detachment, and army. Each model is associated with the other three (unless Unbound, than Detachment may not exist). Marneus Calgar is both a model name and the name of a unit. If a Techmarine joined Mareus Calgar, than the unit with a name of Marneus Calgar now has a Marneus Calgar model and a Techmarine model. Any rules that state just "Marneus Calgar" would only affect the Marneus Calgar model, since it is not identified as affecting a unit like Stubborn does.

What levels of identity does a Vanguard Veteran Squad have?

-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike

No , you are wrong.
It says, Vanguard Veteran Squads ...... Can charge.

-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters

This is correct.

Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.

This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.

point to the word "benefit".

The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.

harkequin wrote:

This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.

It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to allow the IC to benefit from it, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over. It all depends on the Special Rule and according to "On Target" it only effects Vanguard Veteran Squads.

Zimko wrote:
Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.

And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:

This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.

It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to give the benefit, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over.

Zimko wrote:
Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.

And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.

Prove it.
Show me where it says an IC cant benefit from a special rule.

They are not Confered the special rule.

I don't know how to explain this , so im going to come right out and say it.

DIFFERENT WORDS HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:

This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.

It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to allow the IC to benefit from it, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over. It all depends on the Special Rule and according to "On Target" it only effects Vanguard Veteran Squads.

How does Stubborn do this then? It is the example used for how Special Rules confer. How does it do it?

And if you think Veteran Vanguard Squads refer to anything but a unit, I would like to see a quote for that. Blacktoof has failed at least a dozen times on this by now.

For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.

harkequin wrote:
For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.

Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't. You are just proving my point, those Special Rules have a clear rule "if a single model has it everyone in the unit is affected" which includes the IC as it says "affects the entire unit". The IC followed the same rules when it comes to Special Rules and thanks to how the particular rules are worded he can benefit from them, On Target does not.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Exactly. 

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.

Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.

you intend they mean the target is the unit.

However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.

As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:
For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.

Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't.

But according to you the IC cant benefit from the special rule....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fearless says as long as one model has it, it affects the unit. Eg not every model has the rule, yet they benefit from it.

See where im going with this.

harkequin wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:
For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.

Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't.

But according to you the IC cant benefit from the special rule....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fearless says as long as one model has it, it affects the unit. Eg not every model has the rule, yet they benefit from it.

See where im going with this.

The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!

 gmaleron wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.

And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.

I think you're referring to this rule?

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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Here's 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."

So stubborn is given a pass but it never mentions Independent Characters. The reason it is given a pass is because it says the 'unit' is given it's benefit. It's worded in a way that does not require every model in the unit to have the special rule in order for the rule to have an affect on the unit.

On Target also does not specify that every model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' must have the rule in order to benefit. Therefore, it would also be given a pass on the above restriction.

The fact that the BRB states 'as long as one model in the unit' in Stubborn is actually redundant. They also have rules that state 'every model in the unit must have X to benefit'. One of those two must be redundant or the other would not be required. It's just poor rules writing.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Exactly. 

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.

Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.

you intend they mean the target is the unit.

However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.

As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.

It says vanguard veteran squad. Therefore it targets the vanguard veteran squad ......

The Chaplain is part of the vanguard veteran squad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!

SO DOES ON TARGET!

The point is the model doesn't need to have a rule to benefit from it.

so your argument that an IC cant benefit from special rules is obviously wrong

He just cant be confered them.

Yet he doesnt have to be, as i proved.

The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge

It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.

harkequin wrote:

The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!

SO DOES ON TARGET!

It clearly does not!!!

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Exactly. 

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.

Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.

you intend they mean the target is the unit.

However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.

As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.

It says vanguard veteran squad. Therefore it targets the vanguard veteran squad ......

The Chaplain is part of the vanguard veteran squad

lol nope.

The chaplain is part of an unit. The unit is the vanguard veteran squad.

The chaplain however is not part of the vanguard veteran squad, unless you can show the chaplains stats on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet.

One is an unit, the other is the name of an unit that you can purchase models from and put into a formation/detachment.

Unit name != Unit.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Exactly. 

And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.

The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.

Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.

as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.

you intend they mean the target is the unit.

However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.

As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.

On Target is a special rule that Vanguard Veteran MODELS have. It gives a benefit to the "Vanguard Veteran Squad", is there anything called a Vanguard Veteran Squad other than the unit? It does clearly and unambiguously refer to the unit as it names the unit. So you are breaking the forum rules by not clearly marking your post HYWPI indeed you are claiming RAW whilst intentionally not following RAW which is lying, which is rude and also against the forum rules. Can you post something that does follow the rules please?

 FlingitNow wrote:

On Target is a special rule that Vanguard Veteran MODELS have. It gives a benefit to the "Vanguard Veteran Squad", is there anything called a Vanguard Veteran Squad other than the unit? It does clearly and unambiguously refer to the unit as it names the unit. So you are breaking the forum rules by not clearly marking your post HYWPI indeed you are claiming RAW whilst intentionally not following RAW which is lying, which is rude and also against the forum rules. Can you post something that does follow the rules please?

You really need to stop accusing people of lying, you ignored my post how Vanguard Veteran Squad is made up of a minimum of x5 Vanguard Veterans as listed in the Army List Entry. You really need to knock off the attacks on people who disagree with you and instead try to list facts that you have yet to post
that have any relevance, you are breaking the rules as well if your really want to go down that route.