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.

col_impact wrote: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.

Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?

If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?

col_impact wrote: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.

No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".

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

Which are what?

col_impact wrote: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"

Umm... Two problems here.

If you do not treat the IC as being a member of the "Veteran Vanguard Squad", then you are ignoring or violating the requirement to count the IC as being part of the "Veteran Vanguard Squad". The phrase "counts as" is used to when a temporary status is being put in place. It is temporary since the

If you do not think that "Veteran Vanguard Squad", but that it is referring to anything but a unit, than you are ignoring the datasheet itself and applying a standard to something that cannot perform the actions required. I am referring to the earlier reference that you think that a name "can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike."

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

By calling the unit by its name. This is not a leap of logic, but is a standard English convention.

BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

For what purpose? For victory points purposes in the Eternal War mission for example they are calculated at the end of the game rather than during, and additionally we're told:

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed."

Other situations would depend on their own circumstances. Do you have something specific in mind?

Maelstorm: Kill a unit.

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

Charistoph wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

But you score at the end of your turn. Means that by this logic, IC don't count towards killed units?

 koooaei wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

But you score at the end of your turn. Means that by this logic, IC don't count towards killed units?

Unless the objective specifically addresses the IC as counting when killed, no, unfortunately. This is the RAW interpretation, though, and rather stupid. I would have no qualms about giving up points to that objective in this manner.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".

This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.

The IC does not become wholly a part of the unit. If the IC did he would literally lose all the IC rules since those count as "for all rule purposes".

The IC merely "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and does not 'become part of the unit'. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".

In fact the entire ALE and individual unit status of the IC is entirely intact even when attached. It just lays underneath the "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" rule which restricts access to freedoms the IC would have if Independent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?

If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?

Techically, the rule grants it by namespace - direct reference by name. The namespace in this case refers to something that also happens to be a unit.

The rule says if you have something named X give it Y special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although the Formation rules might help shed some light.



The default for Formation special rules is units. Even in the case of 'units' not appearing on the Formation special rules, the general Formation rules provide 'units' unless something in the Formation rule specifically hammers out 'units'.

So, basically, we've come up with stuff that according to RB, IC don't count as dead units when you kill them when they're in a unit...

Charistoph wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.

If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.

 koooaei wrote:
So, basically, we've come up with stuff that according to RB, IC don't count as dead units when you kill them when they're in a unit...

Not until the start of the following Movement phase if the rest of the unit remains alive, or until the start of the following phase of any kind if the rest of the unit is killed.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, basically, we've come up with stuff that according to RB, IC don't count as dead units when you kill them when they're in a unit...

Not until the start of the following Movement phase if the rest of the unit remains alive, or until the start of the following phase of any kind if the rest of the unit is killed.

Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. See my post above.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".

This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.

Incorrect. The Rules carried by the unit are applied to the model. The model then carries those rules wherever they go, just as the unit does.

col_impact wrote:The IC does not become wholly a part of the unit. If the IC did he would literally lose all the IC rules since those count as "for all rule purposes".

Misrepresenting a person's argument is a sad way to counter-argue, wouldn't you agree? I did not state the IC becomes wholly a part of the unit. Reread what I said. I've only stated it a dozen times in this thread.

col_impact wrote:The IC merely "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and does not 'become part of the unit'. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".

Correct. "Counts as" is a temporary affair. "Becomes" is more permanent. The IC is only temporarily a part of the unit, and can or will leave depending on what happens during the game. Again, read what I actually said, not what you assume my point is.

col_impact wrote:In fact the entire ALE and individual unit status of the IC is entirely intact even when attached. It just lays underneath the "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" rule which restricts access to freedoms the IC would have if Independent.

And that is what I said. The IC is operating under the other unit's identity and name while he is part of it. I never said he becomes part of the unit, only "treated as", "counts as", "operates under". You are assuming that I am arguing otherwise.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?

If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?

Techically, the rule grants it by namespace - direct reference by name. The namespace in this case refers to something that also happens to be a unit.

The rule says if you have something named X give it Y special rule.

Right. And that named X happens to be a unit, and the only thing that name actually represents is a unit. I am not calling on a name to Deep Strike, models to Deep Strike, or a detachment to Deep Strike when I call upon a Vanguard Veteran Squad to Deep Strike, I am calling a unit to Deep Strike. To state otherwise is to be ignoring everything the Datasheet says.

col_impact wrote:Although the Formation rules might help shed some light.

Spoiler:

Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.

The default for Formation special rules is units. Even in the case of 'units' not appearing on the Formation special rules, the general Formation rules provide 'units' unless something in the Formation rule specifically hammers out 'units'.

Indeed. And units also apply their special rules to the models that are purchased as a part of it. Not that is relevant since this does nothing to bypass the simple fact that the IC is also operating as a member of the unit as much as any Veteran or Sergeant.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.

If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.

We had this out in the other thread. You could not support it then, do not start lying about it now.

Simply put, an IC that is removed as a casualty cannot be said to be in coherency with the unit. If its rules stop when it is removed from play, then so is its rules to allow it to be joined in the first place, so it again reverts to being a sole unit. I have instructions for the first, but not the second. You cannot provide anything to counter this. The only thing you did in the other thread was insist your magic head rules were always in play, and lying that they were the rules of the game.

My rule of thumb is this:

Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.

So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.

BUt that still conflates "Confer" and "Benefit", when the entire point is that you do not need to HAVE the rule in order to benefit from the rules effects.

 Leth wrote:
My rule of thumb is this:

Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.

So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.

Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.

2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.

Charistoph wrote:

 Leth wrote:
My rule of thumb is this:

Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.

So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.

Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.

2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.

Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.

 Leth wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Leth wrote:
My rule of thumb is this:

Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.

So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.

Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.

2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.

Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.

Which again is the basis for all special rules (Command Benefits ambiguity notwithstanding) - they are assigned only to individual models. There's no such thing as unit special rules conferring to ICs or vice-versa, not because of the rule, but because the concept of unit special rules appears not to exist in the first place, unless one equates units to models, which opens up an entire can of worms best left undisturbed.

I happen to think that it is an entirely reasonable interpretation to read the word "benefits" into page 166 (ie, "...the benefits of a unit’s special rules are not conferred..."), which would be consistent with how rules like Stubborn are written, but that's getting into RAI and HYWPI territory. The RAW is, as per usual with GW, a poorly-worded construct that when parsed out does not actually mean what it purports to mean.

 Leth wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Leth wrote:
My rule of thumb is this:

Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.

So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.

Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.

2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.

Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.

Do you have a quote to support this? I have yet to see any difference noted between a USR and a Datasheet Special Rule. The rulebook does not note any distinctions in differences. The only Special Rules that actually have a global preventative from applying are Command Benefits which are lost if the army is Unbound.

The largest differences between USRs that affect a unit and unit-specific Special Rules that affect a unit is that the USRs include the possibility of an IC giving the benefit to a unit they join, while unit-specific Special Rules automatically assume there is always model in the unit with that rule so long as the unit exists (because there usually is).

Nartheciums are granted to one model in the unit. The rule of that Wargear is to apply a Special Rule to all models in the unit. A Chaplain joining a Command Squad with an Apothecary still receives Feel No Pain.

Necron Deathmark units have Deep Strike, Reanimation Protocols, Hunters From Hyperspace, and Ethereal Interception listed on their datasheet. If part of a Decurion, they also receive Ever-Living.

Deep Strike requires all models in the unit to have it in order to use it. ICs are not exempt on either side of this requirement and are included when the unit Deep Strikes. ICs must have it if the Deathmark unit is to Deep Strike from Reserves.

Reanimation Protocols are specific to the model, so only apply to those models who have it.

Hunters From Hyperspace states Deathmarks in the unit may Wound on 2+ after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves, so only applies to models with the name of Deathmark as the target is not a unit.

Ethereal Interception allows for the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike right after an enemy unit Deep Strikes and shoot after arriving. This is a rule that affects the unit, so ICs would be included in this action just as they would when the unit Deep Striked, and cannot legally be excluded without violating the IC counting as a member of the unit like Stubborn or Deep Strike do.

As I said - no one had an issue with ICs gaining the benefit of certain rules, such as a pain boy giving a war boss feel no pain, until we got no scatter first turn charging DS assault marines.

If the IC unit is not part of the formation listing on the data sheet, than they do not gain the benefits of the formation. Just my 2 cents.

 Glitcha wrote:
If the IC unit is not part of the formation listing on the data sheet, than they do not gain the benefits of the formation. Just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately that isn't how the rules in this instance work. Because the unit is given the benefit, and the IC is indisputably part of the unit, he gains the benefit.

If they wanted to restrict it purely to models from the data sheet, they already have wording that does that. Whether the choice is deliberate or not, the wording in this and similar formations entirely permits it

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Glitcha wrote:
If the IC unit is not part of the formation listing on the data sheet, than they do not gain the benefits of the formation. Just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately that isn't how the rules in this instance work. Because the unit is given the benefit, and the IC is indisputably part of the unit, he gains the benefit.

If they wanted to restrict it purely to models from the data sheet, they already have wording that does that. Whether the choice is deliberate or not, the wording in this and similar formations entirely permits it

And if they wanted to extend it to benefit the unit, they have wording they could have used which they did not.

That the formation includes different army list entries, and one of the army list entries is called out as gaining this formation rule- which is given to models in the unit chosen from that army list entry before deployment. Is not the same as the rule saying it affects the unit.

The rule in question never specifies it affects the unit.

The rule calls out which formation selection gets said rule. Much like 1st strike ultra company or whatever, one of the rules calls out the terminators get the rule not that every model in any unit of the formation gets the rule but its only usable by terminators. In this case it makes no sense for the scouts in the formation to get a special rule that only affects vanguard vets. The rule is telling you which models from a specific selection receive the special rule/benefit.

That it doesn't specifically state models does not have to be said, as the rules for giving command benefits and formation special rules from the BRB already tells us the rules go to models for being slotted in the appropriate formations.

However it would need the rules including any wording that it confers to the whole unit, or the unit gets to benefit if at least one model has it as the BRB tells us is required under ICs and joining units with different special rules.

Page 114, space marine codex, item "3" states that the Unit Name is given at the top of the data sheet

By specifying Vanguard Veteran Squad they have identified the unit, by name

It states VVS may charge. The unit VVS may charge. The IC is a member of the unit. The unit may still charge.

The basic rules for command benefits or special rules indicates models. This Advanced rule changes that. Guess the advanced rule wins out. Your argument literally devolved to "it doesn't need to be said" ie rules NOT written...

So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?

identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."

You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.

Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.

Special rules are by definition advanced rules. Try again

I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.

They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas

Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?

An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.

Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.

Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.

If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.

We had this out in the other thread. You could not support it then, do not start lying about it now.

Simply put, an IC that is removed as a casualty cannot be said to be in coherency with the unit. If its rules stop when it is removed from play, then so is its rules to allow it to be joined in the first place, so it again reverts to being a sole unit. I have instructions for the first, but not the second. You cannot provide anything to counter this. The only thing you did in the other thread was insist your magic head rules were always in play, and lying that they were the rules of the game.

If you start allowing for coherency to be measured between models in play (on the battlefield) and models 'removed from play' (off the battlefield) then you will have the logical consequence that units will be forced to make bee-lines to the side of the table when a model is removed as a casualty.

Moreover, if you do not treat models that are 'removed from play' as not connected to game play then you will have models shooting from the table sides onto the battlefield and using their special rules. This is simply the logical consequence of not disconnecting models that are 'removed from play' from the actual rules of game play.

The only thing there is that enforces that players treat models on the side of the table as different (ie, as dead) are the distinctions the BRB makes between 'play" and 'removed from play'.


So if we follow your line of reasoning, why aren't we drawing coherency between the unit and any of its members that have been removed as casualties? The coherency rules would permit us to.

Also, if we follow your line of reasoning why aren't ICs able to use their special rules or shoot from the side of the table? The shooting rules would permit us to.


Basically, if we follow your line of reasoning we have a profoundly broken game.

So no you do not measure coherency for the IC that is 'removed from play' or allow it access to its rules. If you do so, the logical consequence is that the whole game breaks as you have models in the 'removed from play' zone still interacting with models that are 'in play' on the battlefield.

You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that if carried out logically to other circumstances would break the game.




(Hint: we don't draw coherency or subject models to the rules of play when they are 'removed from play')

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Special rules are by definition advanced rules. Try again

I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.

They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas

Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.

Well troll is put back on ignore.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Special rules are by definition advanced rules. Try again

I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.

They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas

Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.

Well troll is put back on ignore.

reported, rule one

Fabulous. You fail to provide rules support again, just accusations,and apparently I'm the troll. A class act there...

blaktoof wrote:
So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?

identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."

You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.

Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.

You are correct.

If a rule references something directly by name, the word "unit" does not get put in there.

The syntax of the rule is basically 'if something is named X give it rule Y".

The rule uses direct reference by name alone. If there were four things named X (a unit, a model, a counter, and a weapon) then all 4 would technically get the rules and only one technically be able to use it.

The rule expressed this way does not provide the 'case' of the named something. It does not say that this something is a unit.

The rule syntax could actually do something pointless and provide the name of something that could not actually use the rules granted. The rules would still be bestowed but would be unusable.


However, the formation rules do indicate that formations list units and the special rules those units have. So the formation rules do seem to generally provide the word "unit" to the rules listed on the Formation.

If the Formation rules did not provide that catch-all then indeed the rules would narrowly be applied to the named something and not actually to the unit. But the Formation rules do add the word "unit" to the rules in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".

This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.

Incorrect. The Rules carried by the unit are applied to the model. The model then carries those rules wherever they go, just as the unit does.

You are still spouting off nonsense here. If Nemesor Zandrekh loses his name because it was replace when attached to a unit, the rules on his ALE no longer work because you no longer have something on the battlefield that is named Nemesor Zandrekh.

When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.

If a rule is narrowly granted directly to a name then it is applied to that name only.

Luckily for you and the argument you are making, the Formation rules themselves clarify that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, even when the rules themselves do not specify that they are unit rules.