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.

 gmaleron wrote:
On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he has it.

You didn't address the rules quotes I gave. But I'll bite.

Deep Strike specifically states in it's rules that all models in the unit must have Deep Strike in order to Deep Strike. So the Chaplain wouldn't be able to Deep Strike in the first place unless he was given a Jump Pack.

However, if he's given a jump pack, and chooses to deploy with the Vanguard Veteran Squad, then any rule that targets the Vanguard Veteran Squad (such as On Target) would also 'effect' the Chaplain. Note, the rule is not 'conferred' to him. Similar to how a special rule such as Blind can 'effect' the IC who is part of the unit targeted. Just like the rule quote I gave above.

Relentless is another rule that says all models in the unit must have the rule in order to benefit. So your example of Tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar does not apply.

It's cool, everyone has off days.

The point is that the rule targets the squad.
The IC is part of the squad.

The IC can't be conferred the rule, but he can still benefit from it

The important rules are
"the squad can charge"
and " the chaplain is part of the squad".

 gmaleron wrote:
On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he he has it.

And I am sorry for losing my temper, I don't like being ganged up on and my cancer medication isn't helping things.

The Chaplain can get DS from a jump pack or Terminator armour. Now can you support the underlined statement? Are you saying that if an IC doesn't have rending he can't be effected by it?

Let me try to be more clear:

-On Target says Vanguard veteran squads can assault the turn they arrive from deep strike

-when the chaplain joins the Vanguard veteran squad he counts as part of the unit for all intensive purposes

-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form

- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then On Target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or rather it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.

Cause and effect are two different things, the way you are asking the question to me comes across as two different phases of the game. One is in your assault phase of your turn and to be affected by rending you would have to be attacked by it.

-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form

But he doesn't that's like saying he can't be blinded because he never has the blind special rule confered to him.

 gmaleron wrote:
Let me try to be more clear:

-On Target says Vanguard veteran squads can assault the turn they arrive from deep strike

-when the chaplain joins the Vanguard veteran squad he counts as part of the unit for all intensive purposes

-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form

- when reading the on target special rule it specifically states that the Vanguard veteran squad can deep strike and assault, it does not be still the on target special rule on the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.

Cause and effect are two different things, the way you are asking the question to me comes across as two different phases of the game. One is in your assault phase of your turn and to be affected by rending you would have to be attacked by it.

Have you got support for the underlined? Why must an IC have a special rule conferred to him?

- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.

But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.

The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.

harkequin wrote:

-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form

But he doesn't that's like saying he can't be blinded because he never has the blind special rule confered to him.

That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.

According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:

- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.

But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.

The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.

And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:

-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form

But he doesn't that's like saying he can't be blinded because he never has the blind special rule confered to him.

That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.

According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.

So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads. 

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Once again as you know page 166 makes no mention of how ICs are effected by special rules. So again in the interests of polite discussion please refrain from intentionally lying.

 FlingitNow wrote:


So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.

I am NOT lying you are exaggerating what I'm trying to say and being way too technical. And you never said anything about an independent character benefiting from a special rule you asked why must have a special rule conferred to him which it talks about how a special rule has to be conferred to an IC on page 166.

Again I am NOT lying, you can stop refraining from questions that say one thing when you actually mean another. This immature technicality game you're playing is getting old it is impossible to have a polite and mature discussion with someone who can't even get his questions straight.

That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.

But it is a special rule that can effect him. It's just highlighting that to be effected, someone does not need to be conferred the rule.

And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.

Remember, he doesn't use the rule. The vanguards use the rule, this rule then says "the unit can assault"
So the entire unit can assault.

Fearless says as long as one model has the rule "the unit passes morale checks"

They both work the same way, by saying the unit gets the benefit. And the Chaplain is part of the unit.

 gmaleron wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
gmaleron, what does it mean to confer a special rule?
What does it mean to benefit from a special rule?
What does the rulebook say about ICs and special rules?

Where do the rules say that special rules granted by formationds are Command Benefits?

To grant or bestow a special rule

To be able to use said special rule in game

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." Pg166

OK, so if we replace what the rule says, with the definitions you supplied, we have:

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 granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit." Pg166

Command Benefits Page 121:

This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.

A formation is a kind of detachment

Please look at a Formation datasheet. Any formation datasheet. I don't care which one. Where on the chosen datasheet, do you see the words "Command Benefits"?

 gmaleron wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.

I am NOT lying you are exaggerating what I'm trying to say and being way too technical. And you never said anything about an independent character benefiting from a special rule you asked why must have a special rule conferred to him which it talks about how a special rule has to be conferred to an IC on page 166.

Again I am NOT lying, you can stop refraining from questions that say one thing when you actually mean another. This immature technicality game you're playing is getting old it is impossible to have a polite and mature discussion with someone who can't even get his questions straight.

You never answered my question my responses where to lies you said in response to other posters.

Page 166 says HOW an IC gets special rules conferred to them from units they join. Why must he have it conferred?

But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.

And I'm sorry flingitnow but I can't respond to you anymore, your constant accusations of me lying on top of not asking clear questions or giving clear answers (language barrier or something I don't know) but you are not pleasant to talk to. I've stated my opinions multiple times over this thread and it seems to matter what answer I give your going to keep going until I answer the way you want me to. I'm going to continue to try to have a mature and polite discussion, not one that involves someone causing drama by accusing me of lying every 5 seconds. Had to put you on my ignore list, good luck with mature discussion in the future.

 Happyjew wrote:

A formation is a kind of detachment

Please look at a Formation datasheet. Any formation datasheet. I don't care which one. Where on the chosen datasheet, do you see the words "Command Benefits"?

I am referring to what is listed on page 121. Special rules are listed under command benefits for the particular detachment they belong to such as a formation. This to me make special rules a kind of command benefit, just put two and two together.

Friendly reminder that Rule Number One is Be Polite. In this case, for example, please stop calling each other liars. If you think someone is dodging you argument, it is sufficient to point that out without making a personal attack. Thanks!

FYI: Users who spam the forum arguing with moderators will be suspended.

 gmaleron wrote:
But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.

Fearless is also a special rule.

All these rules use the same wording, "on time" doesn't work, "fearless" "stubborn" "shrouded" and "blind" have no effect.

Basically the rule exists , lets take the Vanguard sarge for our example.

Vanguard Sarge - Rules - "on time"
Chaplain rules - Rules - "Zealot"

On time , and Zealot are both rules owned by models in the unit.

"on time" says, the unit can charge
"Zealot" says, the unit automatically passes morale checks

They both function the same way.
The model has the rule. The rule says the unit gets a benefit.

If "on time" doesn't work, then "zealot" doesn't either.

I'm just trying to explain that the Chaplain does not need to have the rule.

The vanguard Sarge has the rule, this rule allows vanguard squads from the formation to assault after deep strike.
We know that the Chaplain is part of the vanguard squad (IC is part of unit for rules purposes)

The Chaplain has the "zealot" rule. As he is part of the unit for rules purposes, he is one model in the unit with the rule, therefore, this rule allows the unit to pass morale tests.


Interesting things to note, the Zealot rule affects the unit, as long as one model in the unit has the rule.

The "on target" rule affects all vanguard squads from the formation. In theory the model with the "on target" rule doesn't even need to be in the squad to allow them to assault.
A scout sergeant could have it and the rule would still say "All vanguard vet squads(from the formation) can assault after deepstrike"

It never says "this unit" or "units with this rule can x..."
It just says that Vanguard squads can assault. And the chaplain is a part of the squad.

Glameron, there are numerous examples of special rules that aren't conferred to an IC, but affect the IC because he is part of the unit.

We are told that stubborn specifically confers itself to an IC, but it doesn't say that in the rule. It grants itself to the unit.
What does that mean for our IC? The rules say it confers to him, even though the stubborn rule itself does not say so.

Hit and run is another example. The rule does not specifically say that it is granted to the IC, but that the IC benefits from it

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.

Where does it require all models to have the rule like Fleet or Deep Strike?

It says so in each Special Rules Description.

Wow, you messed up the quote on that one...

It does not state that every models have the rule like Fleet in Deep Strike in every Special Rule. Lysander in a Sternguard Veteran Squad will still be Relentless even if the rest of the Squad is not. A model with Hatred can still Reroll To Hit even if he is the only one in the unit.

Does On Target require all models in the unit to have the rule in order to take advantage of it like Fleet and Deep Strike? Or does it just states it benefits the unit like Stubborn or Hunters From Hyperspace?

Zimko wrote:[Relentless is another rule that says all models in the unit must have the rule in order to benefit. So your example of Tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar does not apply.

No, it doesn't. It only states a model with this rule gets the benefit. A Relentless Chapter Master can move, use Orbital Strike, and Charge, even if he was in a unit of Assault Marines.

gmaleron wrote:According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.

Yeup, just like Stubborn... Oh wait, Stubborn doesn't really do that, now does it?

harkequin wrote:

- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.

But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.

The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.

And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.

Yeup it is stopped from conferring just like Stubborn is... Oh, wait.

gmaleron wrote:But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.

Because he was not part of a Vanguard Veteran Squad which arrived from Deep Strike Reserves?

Oh, wait, yes, he was.

You need to review ICs and Ongoing Effects. It doesn't matter if an effect is beneficial or detrimental, it was in a unit that received an effect.

Gmaleron - sorry to hear about the meds. Fingers crossed it is under control, the big C is tough on everyone.

Hiwever, you are stating we are being "overly technical" by repeating that ends matter - that confer and benefit are two different word, and have two very different meanings

This is because this is a discussion on the rules as WRITTEN. By its nature we have to take the rules exactly as they are written - no substituting other words.

So yes, benefit is not mentioned. Please, stop using it in place of confer - as soon as you stop giving them the same meaning, the argument is clear

Nowhere in the rule does it require the IC to "possess" the unit in order to benefit from the rules existence. There is nothing on page 166 - NOTHING - that states this.

As such, as soon as a rule benefits the UNIT, it HAS to benefit the IC; if we don't do that, we break the rule that we must treat him like a normal member, for all rules purposes.

Thus, the VVS unit with attached IC remains a VVS. The unit retains permission to charge and, as charging is a unit level action, the unit may charge.

This is absolute RAW. Is it intended ? Feth knows. It's GW. However, it is the absolute rules.

Somewhat tangential to the main thread, but still relevant to the discussion, when reading (very) technically, does the following clause ever actually come into play?

WH40K: The Rules, Appendix, Special Rules, Independent Characters wrote: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.

We know that any special rules listed on the datasheet or conferred by a model's wargear are granted only to those models, not the unit as a whole.

WH40K: The Rules, Core Rules, Models & Units, Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. Don’t worry about any of this for now – for the moment, it’s enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.

Finally Command Benefits starts off specifying models, then inexplicably switches to units.

WH40K: The Rules, Preparing For Battle, Choosing Your Army, Command Benefits wrote:This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

Accepting for the moment that Command Benefits actually apply to models instead of to units, is there ever actually a case in which a unit itself carries special rules independent of its constituent models? Or is the entire conferment clause just empty verbiage without any meaning in-game?

I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".

Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.

Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?


Answering my own query . . .

col_impact wrote:
I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".

Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.

Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?

Well, first off, the "squad" in "Veteran Vanguard Squad" is actually part of the unit name (seriously, look at the datasheet). It is not listed as "Veteran Vanguard Squad squad", anywhere. Nor is there an entity that is just Vanguard Veterans by name with the term "squad" after it that is not a unit. So, arguing that a unit with "squad" in the name is not a unit, is rather pointless.

col_impact wrote:
I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".

Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.

Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?


Answering my own query . . .

Spoiler:

For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game.

Also here, from the 'Models & Units' bit at the beginning of the rules:

"Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

We don't need to equate Squads with Units. Look at the Codex. The actual name of the Unit on the Army List Entry is "Vanguard Veteran Squad".

The rule targets the Unit and uses the Unit's name in doing so. "Squad" is not a defined game term, but "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is. It's the name of an Army List Entry in Codex: Space Marines.

Did nobody look at the Codex?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".

Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.

Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?

Well, first off, the "squad" in "Veteran Vanguard Squad" is actually part of the unit name (seriously, look at the datasheet). It is not listed as "Veteran Vanguard Squad squad", anywhere. Nor is there an entity that is just Vanguard Veterans by name with the term "squad" after it that is not a unit. So, arguing that a unit with "squad" in the name is not a unit, is rather pointless.

That's actually more tricky. We are not dealing with lowercase "squad" but proper noun "Squad".

It's odd that the rule in question doesn't use unit.

Veteran Vanguard Squad is the unit name on the ALE, indisputably.

"Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" would refer to the unit. "Veteran Vanguard Squad" refers to the unit name.

An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.

We still have a problem with references that are coterminous and not necessarily synonymous.

An IC could count as part of a "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" and not be a member of "Veteran Vanguard Squad"
and the rule is conferred to the members of "Veteran Vanguard Squad" and not necessarily what winds up comprising the "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit"

Creeperman wrote:
Somewhat tangential to the main thread, but still relevant to the discussion, when reading (very) technically, does the following clause ever actually come into play?

WH40K: The Rules, Appendix, Special Rules, Independent Characters wrote: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.

We know that any special rules listed on the datasheet or conferred by a model's wargear are granted only to those models, not the unit as a whole.

WH40K: The Rules, Core Rules, Models & Units, Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. Don’t worry about any of this for now – for the moment, it’s enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.

Finally Command Benefits starts off specifying models, then inexplicably switches to units.

WH40K: The Rules, Preparing For Battle, Choosing Your Army, Command Benefits wrote:This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

Accepting for the moment that Command Benefits actually apply to models instead of to units, is there ever actually a case in which a unit itself carries special rules independent of its constituent models? Or is the entire conferment clause just empty verbiage without any meaning in-game?

Your observation of the rules is very astute.

There are no such things as unit special rules. There is no section anywhere in any rulebook showing how unit special rules work or what they are.

Models have special rules, some of those special rules affect the unit when they specify they affect the unit when more than one model in the unit has it, or if they explicitly use the word "unit".

Models can get special rules for the datasheet they are purchased from, from the formation they are in, from the army they are in, or scenario special rules. Some of those special rules have wording that allows them to benefit the unit they are part of. Some units are made up of models which all have the same special rules which in effect looks like an unit rule but if you join a model that is not from that units datasheet/formation with said special rule it does not gain or benefit from the rule unless the rule specifically states it benefits the unit, or the unit can benefit from at least one model having said rule.

Otherwise rules do not affect the unit.

one of the english definitions of confer is benefit.

ICs joined to an unit do not benefit from any of the units special rules unless the special rule states it affects the unit in some way e.g. stubborn/hatred/stealth. The special rule is not given to all the models in the unit, but some rules allow the models in the unit to benefit that do not have the special rule from the wording of their rules.

blaktoof wrote:
ICs joined to an unit do not benefit from any of the units special rules unless the special rule states it affects the unit in some way e.g. stubborn/hatred/stealth. The special rule is not given to all the models in the unit, but some rules allow the models in the unit to benefit that do not have the special rule from the wording of their rules.

And where in the rules is the underlined stated? I see where the rules say that special rules are not conferred, but not that they cannot benefit.

in the section under ICs and joining units with different special rules.

If the special rule does not confer to the IC the only way the IC can benefit from special rules possessed by other models in the unit is if they specifically state they affect the unit if at least one model has the special rule.

otherwise there is no permission for the IC to benefit from rules possessed by other models in the unit.

If the rule is missing the word "unit" how is it benefiting the unit?

Because these are the instances that define when rules are 'shared' (conferred, 'benefit', etc.):

1) A unit containing at least one model with the X special rule can do Y

Otherwise:
2) A unit comprised entirely of models with X special rule can do Y
3) MODELS with X special rule can do Y

Only rules defined as instance #1 'share'.

So: If sloppy writing produces a rule that says, "units with X can do Y", it is not clear with of the 3 instances to invoke. The most liberal is to apply it as instance #1, the most conservative as instance #2, and the middle ground (such as it is), is to apply it as instance #3.

Cheers!