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.

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.

If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".

Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.

Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.

 Kriswall wrote:

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.

If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".

Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.

Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.

Blaktoof is correct. The rule is narrowly being granted to the named something. Anything that is named X will be granted that rule. If there was a counter or weapon called Veteran Vanguard Squad it would be granted the rule

So you are not "effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X". Vanguard Veteran Squad just happens to be a unit and the rules granted are those that can actually be used.

However, as stated already, the Formation rules solve this dilemma. They specify that the rules on Formation datasheets are indeed unit rules.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

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.

If a Techmarine joins a Marneus Calgar Unit, you end up with a situation where two Models... a Techmarine and a Marneus Calgar... are part of a Unit called a Marneus Calgar Unit. It would be appropriate to say "I have a Marneus Calgar Unit containing one Techmarine and one Marneus Calgar".

Models and Units aren't the same thing. You post here often enough that you should know that. The fact that sometimes a Model has the same name as the Army List Entry it is chosen from is coincidental.

Identifying something by name is sort of a core component of spoken language. We say, give me the apple, and not give me the fruit that is named apple. When you say that a Veteran Vanguard Squad can do X, you're effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X. It's the exact same thing.

Blaktoof is correct. The rule is narrowly being granted to the named something. Anything that is named X will be granted that rule. If there was a counter or weapon called Veteran Vanguard Squad it would be granted the rule

So you are not "effectively saying that the unit named Vanguard Veteran Squad can do X". Vanguard Veteran Squad just happens to be a unit and the rules granted are those that can actually be used.

However, as stated already, the Formation rules solve this dilemma. They specify that the rules on Formation datasheets are indeed unit rules.

Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.

 Kriswall wrote:


Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.

Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.

Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.

So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.

Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.

So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.

You asked what the semantic and logical difference between those rules is and I told you and you cannot dispute it. The rule itself is not a unit rule. It is a name rule - the rule is applied to anything named X.

The Formation rules however make it clear that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, so your argument has the correct answer, just not for the reasons you think.

Blaktoof's argument would win out if not for the Formation rules.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Wait, so you're telling me that there is a difference between saying "VVSs can do X" and "units named VVS can do X". Care to elaborate? They seem semantically identical. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to say.

Sure the first rule grants X to anything named VVS. It doesn't care what it happens to be. It could be a counter or a weapon. It only cares that it has that name.

So we're completely ignoring context? Gotcha. Makes no difference that the Formation is made up (in part) of Units called Vanguard Veteran Squads and that the rules references the Vanguard Veteran Squads from the Formation? Also makes no difference that there is nothing else in the game named Vanguard Veterans Squad, so the rule can't possibly be referring to anything else? Understood. From now on I'll be sure to ignore context when reading the rules.

You asked what the semantic and logical difference between those rules is and I told you and you cannot dispute it. The rule itself is not a unit rule. It is a name rule - the rule is applied to anything named X.

The Formation rules however make it clear that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, so your argument has the correct answer, just not for the reasons you think.

Blaktoof's argument would win out if not for the Formation rules.

Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

 Kriswall wrote:


Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.

I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.

I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.

This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"



Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.

Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.

Notice though that that rule also conclusively casts the rules in question as "special rules" which leads directly to this rule . . .

col_impact wrote: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.

Same, unsupported argument. Either quote the exact rule that states all Special Rules stop when Removed From Play or shut up about it.

Can you find any claim that an IC removed from play is still in coherency with its unit? These are the conditions in the rules.

col_impact wrote:

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.

Okay, and for the case of a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" can you identify ANYTHING other than a unit that qualifies? Context matters and is something both of you are ignoring for this.

col_impact wrote: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.

Or, you know, we could actually look for something called that and identify what it is, and see if it applies in this case. Let's see, the Formation lists "1-3 Vanguard Veteran Squads". We know this to be a unit list, so we refer to the unit datasheet called "Vanguard Veteran Squad". This datasheet lists the unit name as "Vanguard Veteran Squad". We review the datasheet and find that it is initially made up of 4 Veterans and 1 Veteran Sergeant. No other "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is listed other than the unit name. We review the book the Formation came in and the faction codex it references, and still find no other entity listed as "Vanguard Veteran Squad".

Therefore, thinking a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" could be anything other than an unit either means you did not do proper homework, or you are being a disingenuous troll? Which do you choose to be, lazy or troll?

col_impact wrote:

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.

I am spouting off nonsense? You are claiming something that I did not say. That is spouting off nonsense and misrepresenting what I said.

Also, you are ignoring the relationship between unit and model. They are not cohabiting levels of relationship in the game. Yes, some units are one model, but that does not mean that they do not have model-affecting rules and unit-affecting rules.

When Nemesor Zahndrekh the unit moves in to coherency with an Immortals unit, at the end of that Movement Phase the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit identity is sublimated by the Immortals unit he joins. The Nemesor Zahndrekh model now operates/counts as a member of the Immortal unit This means you cannot shoot at the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit any more. In order to shoot the Nemesor Zahndrekh model, you have to shoot the Immortals unit.

When the Nemesor Zahndrekh model leaves coherency with the Immortal unit (or it is killed around him), he returns to being the Nemesor Zahndnrekh model in the Nemesor Zahndrekh unit.

Not that you care, you still won't listen and assume I'm saying something else.

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

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

Fine, look at the Veteran Vanguard Squad and demonstrate how many models are called Veteran Vanguard Squad models in it. Using the legend for the datasheet earlier in the codex, we see that there are only Veteran models and Veteran Sergeant models in the unit, and not any Veteran Vanguard Squad models. Therefore, your argument is pointless.

col_impact wrote: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.

Oh, the rules themselves are unit rules when it names something that is only a unit. Only people who do not read context or do proper basic research would think otherwise.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.

I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.

This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"

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.

Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.

Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.

Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.

If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

Same, unsupported argument. Either quote the exact rule that states all Special Rules stop when Removed From Play or shut up about it.

Can you find any claim that an IC removed from play is still in coherency with its unit? These are the conditions in the rules.

The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.

If you do allow it, then once a unit loses a model as a casualty the unit must make a bee-line to the side of the table since its out of coherency.

Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.

I am pretty sure you don't play that way. You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that you aren't adhering to in other circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Gotcha. You don't consider context when reading. Understood. I can now officially ignore your stance.

I was under the impression we were discussing RAW. The semantics and logic of the rule itself cannot be disputed. The rule is applied by name.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Context tells you what the name is referring to. Context is literally a basic reading comprehension issue. You can't just say "this refers to something called a VVS, but we can't possibly know what that is because this one single sentence isn't explicit enough". If only there were other sentences that could shed some light on what a VVS is. Oh wait! There are. You just have to, you know, read them.

I agree that the rule is applied by name. Do you agree that context readily tells us what the named thing is? Do you also agree that context shows us that the named thing can only be one thing? Context eliminates all ambiguity from what the VVS could be.

This rule is what removes the ambiguity and casts the rule in question as a "unit rule"

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.

Without the above rule it could be argued that the rule is narrowly applied to the name only.

Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.

Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.

If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?

The rule says literally if something is named X grant rule Y. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of the rule works and it cannot be disputed. It's just coincidental that the rule is referring to a unit in this case. There is nothing in the rule itself that casts it as a unit rule. The Formation rules cast it as a unit rule.

col_impact wrote:
The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.

Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.

col_impact wrote:
Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.

Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.

But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.

Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.

Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.

However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Context is tricky and quickly shade into arguments over RAI. Hence the disagreement in this thread.

Incorrect. Context isn't that tricky if you are aware of how the basics of army construction and English operate. The rule would be applied to the entity that has the name, not just the name. Since only one entity that carries the narrowly applied name is a unit, we know it is a rule that affects units.

If I said col_impact has rosy skin, am I only referring to the letters "a, c, i, m,p, t" and symbol "_" organized in a specific pattern, or am I referring to a person who posts on Dakkadakka?

The rule says literally if something is named X grant rule Y. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of the rule works and it cannot be disputed. It's just coincidental that the rule is referring to a unit in this case. There is nothing in the rule itself that casts it as a unit rule. The Formation rules cast it as a unit rule.

There is nothing coincidental about it. It was deliberately written to address units with a specific name within the Formation. That is because there are two unit names listed in the Formation, the other being Scout Squads. ...On Target is not written to affect the Scout Squads (though it does use them as a requirement), just Vanguard Veteran Squads. Vanguard Veteran Squad name is only a unit name, therefore the rule affects a unit. That's how the logic, semantics, and syntax of this rule works, and it should not be disputed.

If it was only intended to affect the models specifically with this rule, it would have said, "Models from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike." That would include the Scouts in that, though (riding on a Drop Pod, of course). If it said, "Veterans from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike", it would be leaving the Veteran Sergeant out, and thus leaving them unable to Charge. If it said, "Veterans and Veteran Sergeants from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike", than it would exclude any ICs and members of the Scout Squads from using the rule.

Instead, they chose to identify the beneficiary with a unit name. In so doing, so long as an IC is with a unit named as the beneficiary is "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect", it receives the effect along with it.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.

Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.

So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.

I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.

Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.

But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.

You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.

However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.

Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.

Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.

However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.

He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.

Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.

So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.

I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.

Incorrect. You are assuming an unstated argument. Read what I stated again. Did I state to measure Coherency off the table? I did not. I asked you if you could prove a model removed from play to be in Coherency. It seems to me that you agree that a model removed from play is out of coherency. Note, that I am not stating the unit goes in to an Out of Coherency state when the model is removed, just that the model is out of coherency at all (and usually cannot return).

Now, actually read what I said and quite accusing me of something I did not say.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.

Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.

But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.

You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.

However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.

Incorrect. I acknowledge "removed from play", just as I did in the other thread. I just do not subscribe to the effect which you believe this entails because I have no permission or requirement to override the other rules with it when they trigger.

How do you know "everyone else" plays the same way you do? You cannot prove that zero rules a model possess can be used when removed from play. You can only demonstrate what it can do while in play. This is not the same thing. Your refusal to actually read what I have written is reaching trollish levels.

Models Removed From Play have zero reference points to be measured from off the battlefield with any more than when the models are in Reserve. Without that, we cannot properly measure. As you may have noticed we do not have permission to measure from or to models that are not "in play".

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.

Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.

Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.

However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.

He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.

Independent Character is a model-based Special Rule. It does not transfer any benefit from model to unit. This rule allows a model to move out of coherency and become a lone model unit. It also allows that model to join another unit and "count as" part of that unit while joined. It also improves Look Out Sir! rolls.

The "counts as" rule does not bind the IC as an individual unit to another unit while allowing that individual unit to continue to be recognized as such. If this was the case, then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" would not be in force, and I could target said IC out by shooting. Instead, the model which was operating as an individual unit, temporarily sublimates its individual unit identity in favor of the unit's identity it joins. This model then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".

Either the IC model is considered by the game to be a full member of the unit (albeit temporarily and can remove itself) when something happens to it, or it doesn't. There are no rules to consider it partially part of the unit when any rule affects the unit. Indeed, the IC rules are quite clear that the IC is completely part of the unit when a rule affects the unit. There is no rule or room for any other interpretation except what you choose to write in yourself.

You seemed to think the IC is part of the unit in the Necron Getting Started Formation rule which allows a unit to be returned from Removed From Play, why do you reject this version instead? Because of it actually using a name? The Necron Formation also uses unit names in its rules as well because two of the starting units do not qualify for this benefit, even while carrying the rule.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The problem here is that you are saying you do draw coherency between models on the battlefield and models on the side of the table.

Incorrect. You are assuming an argument. I'm saying you cannot draw Coherency between models on the battlefield and models off the table. In order for an IC to be consider joined to a unit, it must be in Coherency, or at least waiting in Reserves with a unit. Being Removed From Play does not count as either.

So once a unit that loses a model as a casualty it has to make a bee-line to the side of the table since the model on the side of the table is out of coherency. Got it. Seems like a bad way to play the game, but if that's how your play group plays it then so long as you play it that way you can remove the IC from the unit on the basis of out of coherency.

I don't think anyone else plays it that way though. So your house ruled way of playing is useless to everyone else.

Incorrect. You are assuming an unstated argument. Read what I stated again. Did I state to measure Coherency off the table? I did not. I asked you if you could prove a model removed from play to be in Coherency. It seems to me that you agree that a model removed from play is out of coherency. Note, that I am not stating the unit goes in to an Out of Coherency state when the model is removed, just that the model is out of coherency at all (and usually cannot return).

Now, actually read what I said and quite accusing me of something I did not say.

You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.

You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.

The logical consequences of both those propositions lead to a broken game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, if models that are 'removed from play' can still 'play' their special rules then the Catacomb Command Barge can still cast its 12" leadership buff from the side of the table.

Not without a proper point of reference to allow that Command Barge to cast its 12" buff from.

But that still does not change the simple fact that I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC rules regarding them leaving the unit just because they are removed from play. There are no rules covering this in the rulebook. So again, quote up or shut up and admit that it's just HYWPI.

You can measure from the side of the table just as easily as on the Battlefield. All the regular rules work from that position, especially since you do not recognize a difference between "in play" and "not in play". So models removed from play as casualties on the side of the table can shoot at units on the battlefield and use special rules that are in range. The rules grant them full permission to do. The only thing preventing them is the designation "removed from play" which you refuse to acknowledge.

However, everyone else plays the game in such a way that models "removed from play" don't get to play anymore, so no shooting or special rules from the grave. So again, your house rules are useless to everyone.

Incorrect. I acknowledge "removed from play", just as I did in the other thread. I just do not subscribe to the effect which you believe this entails because I have no permission or requirement to override the other rules with it when they trigger.

How do you know "everyone else" plays the same way you do? You cannot prove that zero rules a model possess can be used when removed from play. You can only demonstrate what it can do while in play. This is not the same thing. Your refusal to actually read what I have written is reaching trollish levels.

Models Removed From Play have zero reference points to be measured from off the battlefield with any more than when the models are in Reserve. Without that, we cannot properly measure. As you may have noticed we do not have permission to measure from or to models that are not "in play".

Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.

Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.

If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

That is what I said. I also said that you could not operate the individual unit named Nemesor Zahndrekh until the model leaves the unit, since he counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes. And names are a rule.

Nemesor Zandrekh never loses his name or his ALE and he is always an individual unit. He never actually becomes a member of the unit. Only for resolving rules does he count as a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit when attached to the unit.

Wow, you seriously cannot accept what I said or the context in which I said it. That is simply amazing.

Once again, I never stated he loses his name, or his ALE, nor that he becomes a member of the unit (at least not on a permanent basis). You even quoted me saying that.

However, you are partially incorrect on him "always being an individual unit". While part of a unit, Nemesor Zahndrekh cannot operate as an individual unit, his unit "counts as" unavailable, or at least, not referable just as much as he "counts as a part of the unit for ALL purposes" while attached to it. This is what I meant by his unit identity being sublimated by the unit he joins. If Zahndrekh could operate as an individual unit while also counting as part of another unit, he could be targeted as an individual unit at the same time. This does not mesh with the written rules.

He is always an individual unit. If he were not, he could not move out of coherency. The "counts as" rule binds the IC as an individual unit to a unit and makes the IC behave "as if" part of the unit but without actually removing the "individual unit" status. The "counts as" rule covers that status, but the cover has holes on it. One of them is the IC's ability to move out of coherency which he could not do if he were not still an individual unit.

Independent Character is a model-based Special Rule. It does not transfer any benefit from model to unit. This rule allows a model to move out of coherency and become a lone model unit. It also allows that model to join another unit and "count as" part of that unit while joined. It also improves Look Out Sir! rolls.

The "counts as" rule does not bind the IC as an individual unit to another unit while allowing that individual unit to continue to be recognized as such. If this was the case, then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" would not be in force, and I could target said IC out by shooting. Instead, the model which was operating as an individual unit, temporarily sublimates its individual unit identity in favor of the unit's identity it joins. This model then "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".

Either the IC model is considered by the game to be a full member of the unit (albeit temporarily and can remove itself) when something happens to it, or it doesn't. There are no rules to consider it partially part of the unit when any rule affects the unit. Indeed, the IC rules are quite clear that the IC is completely part of the unit when a rule affects the unit. There is no rule or room for any other interpretation except what you choose to write in yourself.

You seemed to think the IC is part of the unit in the Necron Getting Started Formation rule which allows a unit to be returned from Removed From Play, why do you reject this version instead? Because of it actually using a name? The Necron Formation also uses unit names in its rules as well because two of the starting units do not qualify for this benefit, even while carrying the rule.

The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.



The "counts as" rule relaxes in the movement phase and the IC is allowed to exercise his abilities as an independent unit and move out of coherency.

The "counts as" as rule shackles the IC, but it doesn't transform the IC. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".

Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.

Cll- in correct. When An IC leaves the unit, he "again" becomes a unit of one model. Meaning he wasnt a unit of one model while joined.

He simply has explicit permission to move out of coherency, overriding that rule.

col_impact wrote:
You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.

Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?

col_impact wrote:
You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.

Show me where it says this in the rulebook.

col_impact wrote:
Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.

Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.

If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.

Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.

col_impact wrote:
The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.

Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.

[quote=col_impact 678568 8430020 nullThe "counts as" rule relaxes in the movement phase and the IC is allowed to exercise his abilities as an independent unit and move out of coherency.

I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.

Well he has already made one unsupported Jump with his "removed from play" concept, and another when assuming I said "become" when I said "counts as" or "operates as" and then uses the same words I actually used as an argument against it. So, yes, I do think that he is taking extraordinary leaps of unsupported logic to arrive at that conclusion.

One of the key thing I think to highlight is that under special rules it says that "a MODEL is given a special rule by its unit entry or its unit type"

So models have special rules, and as we see, you can many times have models where some have the special rule and some dont. In some cases we are told it only requires one model in the unit have it apply to the unit. In other situations we have things that give the special rule to every model in the unit.

Because on target is listed as a special rule it follows all the restrictions associated with a special rule and is thus not conferred unto an IC unless it says otherwise. The hard part is that the effects being negated are a unit wide effect, not a model specific effect. It is not saying that these models are no longer having this limitation it is saying that the entire UNIT is losing this limitation.

However I think the key thing here is that we have a special rule that confers to a specific unit type, not specific models. So because in this case when an IC joins the unit he becomes that unit for all rules purposes he would get the benefit on ...on target as it gives the rule to a unit, not to specific models. If it said "Vanguard Veterans in this detachment get" it would not apply to the IC but because it says the units get then I would say it can.

I recognize that this is a flip of my previous statement but it seems to follow with how the rules are written.

One reservation that I have is the 'a member of the unit for all rules purposes' and the next paragraph then lists the exceptions. That's hardly 'all rule purposes'

Both sides of the argument have merit, but the final answer can only be found by discussing with your opponent before playing.

Cheers

Andrew

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.

Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?

So if you are not measuring for coherency then how are you providing the >2" horizontal measurement required to be able to designate the model 'out of coherency'?

Why are you allowing a special rule to function on models "removed from play" while not allowing a measurement rule to function on models "removed from play"?

Point to the rule in the BRB that says that models 'not in play' are not allowed to be measured to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.

Show me where it says this in the rulebook.

You are the one trying to use a special rule on the model while it is 'removed from play'. Do you have permission to use special rules while a model is 'removed from play'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.

Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.

If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.

Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.

The measurement rules do not specify 'on the battlefield' or 'while not removed from play' so they provide general permission to models that 'are removed from play'.

So according to your line of reasoning which ignores the designation 'removed from play', a player is free to measure between models on the battlefield and 'removed from play' and have models that are 'removed from play' shoot and use special abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.

Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.

Incorrect. The IC is not hidden from the IC rules so they are not hidden from ALL rules interactions. In fact this is a critical thing to keep in mind or else the attaching to the host unit is a one-way ticket with no return.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.

Spoiler:

Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.

Incorrect. The ALE contains more than unit identity, it covers model identity, stats, Wargear, and Special Rules that apply to the models in the unit. An ICs unit identity is not recognized by the game while the IC is joined to another unit, as it "counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes", not just those rules we want to conveniently remember. Therefore, as far as the game operates, it does consider the IC to be a characteristic profile on the Vangaurd Veteran Squad so long as the IC is joined, but its unique Special Rules would be separated out from the original models of the unit, just as the original models rules would be separated out from the IC's Special Rules.

ALEs specifically describe units per the rules. So if an IC actually lost his individual unit status then the ALE could not, by definition, describe him anymore and you would have to look to the ALE of the Vanguard Veteran Squad for a description of the IC.



He is according to you counting as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes so he must now find his model description on the ALE he has permission to use which is the VVS ALE.

The IC would lose the special rules associated with the ALE he just lost since those special rules only apply to models in the unit with the unit name <IC Name>.

That is, of course, unless he retains his individual unit status which would allow the ALE to still describe him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.

Incorrect.

Charistophe is saying that he can use this one particular special rule on an IC while "removed from play" because no rule specifically says it does not apply while "removed from play".

The consequences of that line of reasoning are that all other rules work for a model that is "removed from play" if they lack the specification "does not apply while removed from play".

Movement rules, measurement rules, line of sight, shooting, psychic shooting, assaulting all would work for a model "removed from play" or in "reserves".

So my Catacomb Command Barge that has been removed from play as a casualty still casts its 12" bubble from the side of the table and can shoot at units on the battlefield.

And my units in reserve can just move onto the battlefield turn one if I place them on the side of the table next to the battlefield.

The game breaks if there is no practical distinction between units 'in play' and units 'not in play'.

You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that radically breaks the game. Charistophe does not have a tenable argument.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are proposing that we measure coherency between models in play and models that are 'removed from play'.

Incorrect as I have said repeatedly. I am not proposing any such thing. I am stating that we cannot as models not in play are not allowed to be measured to. Do you actually read what is written?

So if you are not measuring for coherency then how are you providing the >2" horizontal measurement required to be able to designate the model 'out of coherency'?

Why are you allowing a special rule to function on models "removed from play" while not allowing a measurement rule to function on models "removed from play"?

Point to the rule in the BRB that says that models 'not in play' are not allowed to be measured to.

You have this backwards from what I'm saying. I'm saying that since the model is not on the table and Removed From Play, it cannot be within 2" of the unit. That is what "in coherency" means. If a model is not IN coherency, it is OUT of coherency. Do you understand what I am saying?

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are also proposing that models have access to special rules while 'removed from play' and that you are still able to 'play' them.

Show me where it says this in the rulebook.

You are the one trying to use a special rule on the model while it is 'removed from play'. Do you have permission to use special rules while a model is 'removed from play'?

So, your answer is "no" to this request that asks you to provide proof that a model "removed from play" has basically/unmodified zero access to their rules, like usual? You made a case support it with rules.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Have you actually read the measurement rules? They do not require the models be on the battlefield. All you need is models and a measuring tape. Those are your reference points. And you have models on the side of the table and models on the battlefield and a measuring tape. The 'removed from play' rule puts the models on the side of the table. If you line the models up along the edge of the battlefield you can shoot onto the battlefield.

Show me in the measurement rules where they would not work for models on the side of the table.

If models that are 'removed from play' are not forbidden from 'playing', nothing prevents them from shooting from the grave and using special rules from the grave.

Already stated and already covered. Show me where they are allowed to be while Removed From Play.

The measurement rules do not specify 'on the battlefield' or 'while not removed from play' so they provide general permission to models that 'are removed from play'.

So according to your line of reasoning which ignores the designation 'removed from play', a player is free to measure between models on the battlefield and 'removed from play' and have models that are 'removed from play' shoot and use special abilities.

Nor do they say that models that have been removed from play may measure from off the table. Try again?

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is always an individual unit. The fact is just hidden from most rules interactions. If he lost that, he wouldn't be able to move out of coherency at all.

Incorrect. They are hidden from ALL rules interactions. The IC has a model-affecting rule that allows it to move out of coherency. Until one of its conditions is met for leaving the unit, it's individual unit status is not recognizable by the game at all. If it was than I Precision Shots and Precision Attacks would not be needed to single him out.

Incorrect. The IC is not hidden from the IC rules so they are not hidden from ALL rules interactions. In fact this is a critical thing to keep in mind or else the attaching to the host unit is a one-way ticket with no return.

So you are ignoring the "counts as a part of the unit for all rules purposes". Good to know. And incorrect again. The MODEL has permission to leave the unit, and when it does, it becomes a one model unit AGAIN.

"Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. They can join other Independent Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Do you see anything that is referring to an Independent Character as a unit? I do not. Since it is not referring to the Independent Character as a unit, its rules are not directing a unit to do anything. Remember how special rules are applied? So, it is the model which is allowed to leave and join other units. And while joined, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes", not just the ones we wish to enforce.

So, yes, the IC's ability to operate as, be identified as, or be enacted upon as an individual unit is curtailed, ignored, hidden, and sublimated while counting as a part of another unit. I have zero permission to do anything else.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also if the IC were to lose its individual unit status he would lose his ALE as those are features of units and not models. If the IC became a model it would become just a characteristic profile on the Vanguard Veteran Squad ALE.

Spoiler:

Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.

Incorrect. The ALE contains more than unit identity, it covers model identity, stats, Wargear, and Special Rules that apply to the models in the unit. An ICs unit identity is not recognized by the game while the IC is joined to another unit, as it "counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes", not just those rules we want to conveniently remember. Therefore, as far as the game operates, it does consider the IC to be a characteristic profile on the Vangaurd Veteran Squad so long as the IC is joined, but its unique Special Rules would be separated out from the original models of the unit, just as the original models rules would be separated out from the IC's Special Rules.

ALEs specifically describe units per the rules. So if an IC actually lost his individual unit status then the ALE could not, by definition, describe him anymore and you would have to look to the ALE of the Vanguard Veteran Squad for a description of the IC.

He is according to you counting as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes so he must now find his model description on the ALE he has permission to use which is the VVS ALE.

The IC would lose the special rules associated with the ALE he just lost since those special rules only apply to models in the unit with the unit name <IC Name>.

That is, of course, unless he retains his individual unit status which would allow the ALE to still describe him.

And that is why ICs do not get the units' special rules conferred upon them.

But if he retains is individual status in any portion, then you would still be denying the rules for the IC.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thik col-impact is making the excluded middle falalcy here? Youre saying you CANNOT measure coherency, which is correct, and Col is then flipping that round to say you CAN measure which is why youre finding theyre not in coherency - but thats logically not a statement that can be made with any certainty.

Incorrect.

Charistophe is saying that he can use this one particular special rule on an IC while "removed from play" because no rule specifically says it does not apply while "removed from play".

Correct, except you got my name wrong. I should also add that the rule itself is never stated to consider being "in play" to be used, either.

col_impact wrote:
The consequences of that line of reasoning are that all other rules work for a model that is "removed from play" if they lack the specification "does not apply while removed from play".

Not quite, you described "in play" rather well in the other thread. I just do not agree with the extent you treat "removed from play" since I have zero instructions to do so.

col_impact wrote:
Movement rules, measurement rules, line of sight, shooting, psychic shooting, assaulting all would work for a model "removed from play" or in "reserves".

So my Catacomb Command Barge that has been removed from play as a casualty still casts its 12" bubble from the side of the table and can shoot at units on the battlefield.

Incorrect as they all apply to units in play, and we do not have references for units "not in play" for things like measuring.

col_impact wrote:
And my units in reserve can just move onto the battlefield turn if I place them on the side of the table next to the battlefield.

Almost as if there weren't already rules covering that part... oh, wait, there are.

col_impact wrote:
The game breaks if there is no practical distinction between units 'in play' and units 'not in play'

True. But you have not provided a substantiated definition of what "removed from play" does. You have only presented your opinion. Opinions are fine, but they are not RAW.

Charistoph,

No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.

All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).

Take your pick and stick to it!

A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"

OR

B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".


You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!

Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.

Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph,

No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.

All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).

Take your pick and stick to it!

A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"

OR

B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".


You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!

Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.

Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.

So, I guess you can measure from off the table since we have no rules stating otherwise.

I will follow the instructions I have, I see no reason to follow instructions that are only made up in your head and only work half the time as well.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph,

No rules in the BRB specify that they work on units 'in play'.

All of the rules (movement, shooting, line of sight, psychic shooting, assault, etc.) would work for units not 'in play'. They all have general allowance to work on units, whether 'in play' or 'not in play'. None of those rules require a battlefield. They only require models as points of reference (which the side of the table provides) and a tape measure (which you have).

Take your pick and stick to it!

A) Rules work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically restricted from working on units "removed from play"

OR

B) Rules do not work on units "removed from play" unless they are specifically allowed to work on units "removed from play".


You have to be consistent or your argument is not tenable. If you allow your IC rule to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance you have to allow all other rules to work on units "removed from play" due to general allowance. "Removed from play" is either included in the general allowance or not. So make up your mind and stick to it!

Approach A of course leads to a broken game and so is not a plausible course of action. Including "removed from play" in the general allowance is not tenable.

Approach B leads to a functioning game and introduces no problems and so is a plausible course of action.

So, I guess you can measure from off the table since we have no rules stating otherwise.

I will follow the instructions I have, I see no reason to follow instructions that are only made up in your head and only work half the time as well.

Do what you like. I will follow the only plausible and tenable rule interpretation that the rules provide. Reductio ad absurdum. As long as logic is an acceptable addition to a RAW argument then my argument is RAW.

That's not how 'RAW' (the phrase) works but whatever. We know it means nothing to you.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That's not how 'RAW' (the phrase) works but whatever. We know it means nothing to you.

So are you saying that grammar, logic, semantics, math, and the like do not factor in to RAW?

Grammar and context do, and depending on the rule so can Maths.

Logic? Rules don't have to be logical as they are written. Indeed, if you are using logic for your arguement in a way that goes against what's RAW it is, by definition, not RAW.