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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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.

The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.

col_impact wrote:
The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.

The problem is the "special case" is not actually defined in the rulebook with any limits, permissions, or restrictions after it is applied. Not in a case where it involves a permissive ruleset, at least.

I will say it again, I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC's change of status when it is removed from play and is then no longer in coherency with the unit. That is the RAW of the situation, period.

That everyone applies their own definition of how that "special case" defines the limits, permissions, and restrictions would then be a given. Meaning your interpretation is only HYWPI or what you believe the RAI is. Nothing more. It is not even that unreasonable, it just isn't RAW.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The logic I used in my argument did not go against RAW. The logic sorted out whether 'removed from play' is a special case or a general case. Reductio ad absurdum proved 'removed from play' is a special case.

The problem is the "special case" is not actually defined in the rulebook with any limits, permissions, or restrictions after it is applied. Not in a case where it involves a permissive ruleset, at least.

I will say it again, I do not have permission or requirement to ignore the IC's change of status when it is removed from play and is then no longer in coherency with the unit. That is the RAW of the situation, period.

That everyone applies their own definition of how that "special case" defines the limits, permissions, and restrictions would then be a given. Meaning your interpretation is only HYWPI or what you believe the RAI is. Nothing more. It is not even that unreasonable, it just isn't RAW.

It depends on how you view logical analysis and whether that can be added to RAW. If all we do is take straight RAW and throw out the absurd lines of reasoning per a well-formed 'reductio ad absurdum' logical argument its still RAW.

It works both ways. It's not like I can pull a stunt in a game where I start having my dead guys shoot from the sidelines even though I have full RAW permission and justification for doing so.

col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.

So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.

at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.

throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.

 _ghost_ wrote:
col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.

So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.

at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.

throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.

The lines of reasoning aren't just absurd to me. I have shown using 'reductio ad absurdum' that the rules themselves treat those lines of reasoning as absurd. All that is required is that the players want to play a playable game.

The same kind of argument is used to throw out a line of reasoning as absurd that would require a Formation to exactly list "Marneus Calgar Chapter Master of the Ultramarines" (which is the exact Unit Name) in order to use a Formation listing just "Marneus Calgar".

col_impact wrote:
The lines of reasoning aren't just absurd to me. I have shown using 'reductio ad absurdum' that the rules themselves treat those lines of reasoning as absurd. All that is required is that the players want to play a playable game.

That has not been my point, and the point you keep missing is this: Your "logic pattern" is ONLY that, but you claim that they are the Written Rules, and provide no actual written quotations of rules.

Do you understand this?

When I see "removed from play", it tells me it is removed from the battlefield and any rules that rely on the model being on the battlefield cannot be used. It is literally removed from the play of the game. Being 'in play' is synonymous with being 'deployed' from my perspective and logic pattern. Being in Reserves or a casualty is not being 'in play'. Being 'in play' allows for measurements to be made to and from the model and so Movement and Shooting may occur.

But that is just my opinion and perspective. And that recognition is the difference between us.

Hyper literalism (what you are considering RAW) is a doomed enterprise in the context of a system riddled with flaws.

All sorts of easily justified rules interaction can be de-railed on typos or the silliest of pedantic lines of reasoning.

And all sorts of RAW exploits (such as deploying your units out of coherence) exist that quickly derail the game to the point of unplayability.

40k simply cannot be compiled through a hyper literalistic compiler (to use a programming analogy).

As long as you accept as a given that the game is intended to be playable you can assert plenty of conclusions based solely on that given and the rules. You can throw out any lines of reasoning that would lead to a radically broken game.

And, in fact, when people get together and set up the 40k battlefield they operate under that exact social contract - that the game that they are attempting to play is playable.

So hyper literalism operating entirely on its own leads to a game that cannot be played and has no value in a forum about playing the game.

If this were a forum about how to break 40k then hyper literalism would have value in such a forum.

But a RAW approach that starts with the given that the game is intended to played can use well-formed logical arguments to clean out lines of reasoning that lead to a broken game.



And one person's opinion is not the same value as another person's opinion. The person who has the better reasoned opinion has the better opinion. Reason is an agreed value in rule judgments.

A person' opinion that asserts with a well-reasoned argument that a line of thinking can't be followed because it leads to absurd game play is far more valuable than a person's opinion that a rule does not work a particular way because it makes the Tau tougher and they are tough enough already.

col_impact wrote:
Hyper literalism (what you are considering RAW) is a doomed enterprise in the context of a system riddled with flaws.

All sorts of easily justified rules interaction can be de-railed on typos or the silliest of pedantic lines of reasoning.

And all sorts of RAW exploits (such as deploying your units out of coherence) exist that quickly derail the game to the point of unplayability.

40k simply cannot be compiled through a hyper literalistic compiler (to use a programming analogy).

As long as you accept as a given that the game is intended to be playable you can assert plenty of conclusions based solely on that given and the rules. You can throw out any lines of reasoning that would lead to a radically broken game.

And, in fact, when people get together and set up the 40k battlefield they operate under that exact social contract - that the game that they are attempting to play is playable.

So hyper literalism operating entirely on its own leads to a game that cannot be played and has no value in a forum about playing the game.

If this were a forum about how to break 40k then hyper literalism would have value in such a forum.

But a RAW approach that starts with the given that the game is intended to played can use well-formed logical arguments to clean out lines of reasoning that lead to a broken game.

This is a forum about the rules of the game as they exist, not how we want them to be. We can include How You Would Play It, so long as we indicate as such, but to indicate unwritten rules as the Written Rules of the game is point-blank lying to any readers of the post. If you want to go to the forum about how you want the rules to be, please look one step below this one on the board list called "40K Proposed Rules".

This is what I do when I run in to situations and rule offerings I don't like or not addressed, I state what the Rule states As Written, and then state that I find it silly, stupid, or useless and indicate How I Would Play It.

Such as when someone says, "I think being able to have an IC charge with a Assault Marine Squad or Vanguard Veteran Squad after they Deep Strike is too powerful, so I wouldn't play it that way." It is perfectly fine statement that offers no argument aside from trying to change opinion.

However, when someone says, "An IC is part of the unit when it gets shot, affected by Stubborn, or is returned from being destroyed, but not part of the unit when they arrive from Deep Strike together and see if they can Charge, and that's the rules", it is disingenuous statement. The person may be mistaken, and in most cases it is taken from a perspective of power and not legality, but after so many quotes on the subject that indicates that is not what the rules state but continue repeating it, they are coming across as nothing but a liar, even to themselves.

col_impact wrote:
And one person's opinion is not the same value as another person's opinion. The person who has the better reasoned opinion has the better opinion. Reason is an agreed value in rule judgments.

A person' opinion that asserts with a well-reasoned argument that a line of thinking can't be followed because it leads to absurd game play is far more valuable than a person's opinion that a rule does not work a particular way because it makes the Tau tougher and they are tough enough already.

Not necessarily. One person's opinion can be quite reasonable and logical, but still not supported by the rules, or as equally reasonable as another person's opinion.

I think it is unreasonable for a unit to have all its weapons fire at the exact same target when some of those weapons are not fit to be used on that target, yet those are the rules. Being reasonable is fine, but RAW also requires it to be Written (it's part of the name after all).

 _ghost_ wrote:
col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.

So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.

at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.

throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.

Col_Impact already admitted in another thread that he ignores rules that he thinks go against his stance even if they are RAW.

Fragile wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
col_impact:
You can't throw out lines that are absurd to you and claim then it is RAW. RAW = ruled as written. so you have to use ALL rules and lines that are written. only as long as you do yo you are playing RAW. thats the definition of RAW. no matter how well thought and fitting your logic is. By logic itself its clear that the moment you change- throuw away or overread lines of the written rules. you are no longer in a RAW condition.

So the moment there is a rule situation that is not clear disolvable by written rules you have eighter to use a d6 wich is also raw... or you have to agree ffor a house rule how to solve this. the houserule can be a HIWP or based of a guessed RAI. but that doesn't matter. the houserule solution is not RAW. same as your "aplied logic RAW" wich is also not RAW.

at all :
somehow i feel this thread got very side tracked. the last pages seems to be about nearl esotherical rule interpretations about meassuring. why not come bat to the topic itself? How IC acts in a Unit. how it acs with special rules. and how exactly it is a different one the moment we talk about formations.

throuwing quote walls at each other doesn't answer this and also it makes it not that pleasand to tread the threade eighter.

Col_Impact already admitted in another thread that he ignores rules that he thinks go against his stance even if they are RAW.

Context? What rule are you talking about and based on what argument am I ignoring it? I will happily justify my reasons for doing so if you like.

RAW you get to add Spyders to the unit of 1 Spyder in the Canoptek Harvest, but last I checked you ignore that.

RAW a scarab unit of 9 scarabs in the Retribution Phalanx that has its unit size increased to 12 by Spyders returns to play with 12 scarabs, but last I checked you ignore that.

What is the starting size of the scarab unit? Pretend it isn't fearless, and was falling back.

Does it regroup normally at 3 models, or at 4?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What is the starting size of the scarab unit? Pretend it isn't fearless, and was falling back.

Does it regroup normally at 3 models, or at 4?

It does not regroup normally at 3 models. It regroups normally at 4 models. The Spyder rule has added scarab bases to the unit and taken the unit size beyond the starting size, per the Spyder rule. If you somehow think you have a unit size of 9 then you are not obeying the Spyder rule "to take the unit beyond its starting size". Real straightforward.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What is the starting size of the scarab unit? Pretend it isn't fearless, and was falling back.

Does it regroup normally at 3 models, or at 4?

It does not regroup normally at 3 models. It regroups normally at 4 models. The Spyder rule has added scarab bases to the unit and taken the unit size beyond the starting size, per the Spyder rule. If you somehow think you have a unit size of 9 then you are not obeying the Spyder rule "to take the unit beyond its starting size". Real straightforward.

This is a different subject entirely to the topic of this thread. If either of you want to go over it, AGAIN, start another thread. Otherwise, unless you plan on directing this to how Detachment Special Rules, Units, and ICs interact, leave it to PMs.

The rules provide an answer to the question of the thread.

The formation rules are indisputably unit special rules and there is no specification to include the IC.

But then we still have the problem that a special rule targets the Unit as a whole. and while joined a IC is in fact a part of said unit.

 _ghost_ wrote:
But then we still have the problem that a special rule targets the Unit as a whole. and while joined a IC is in fact a part of said unit.

That's a problem that the rule resolves. It says the IC does not get the special rule. Real straightforward. On what basis are you saying the issue has not been fully resolved ?

col_impact wrote:
The rules provide an answer to the question of the thread.

The formation rules are indisputably unit special rules and there is no specification to include the IC.

Spoiler:

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

Only by ignoring the noted exception of the Stubborn is this 100% factual.

So, either Stubborn does not work in preventing a joined IC's Leadership to be reduced, or some unit rules will affect ICs when they are joined just like stubborn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
But then we still have the problem that a special rule targets the Unit as a whole. and while joined a IC is in fact a part of said unit.

That's a problem that the rule resolves. It says the IC does not get the special rule. Real straightforward. On what basis are you saying the issue has not been fully resolved ?

"Does not get" does not mean "does not benefit", though. Two different rules with two different meanings. And ignores the stipulation that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Either the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, which includes detachment special rules affecting a unit just like Stubborn, Fearless, etc., or it does not count as part of the unit for all rules purposes and puts a lie to this rule.

It looks like you are trying to use a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument to go against plainly stated rules. That's a wonderful bit of irony.

The rule only uses Stubborn as an example. The rule requires that the IC be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule that would logically include him.

The Stubborn rule has the specific language "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." which logically includes attached ICs

Even if the example did not for some reason work, the rule is not dependent on the example actually being pertinent. So a debate over Stubborn is not relevant to the discussion of the rule.

The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC. The rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.

Confer means 'grant benefit' so the IC cannot benefit from the formation special rule.

No, it means "grant (a title, benefit...)"

Being disingenuous again?

He is not granted the rule

He may benefit from the rule without being granted e rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it means "grant (a title, benefit...)"

Being disingenuous again?

He is not granted the rule

He may benefit from the rule without being granted e rule.

Huh? You listed a definition that proves my correct use of the word. If you are going to participate in this thread you are required to use English correctly.


The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC (such as "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."). The IC rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.

Unless someone can point to a specific clause (such as "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."), the RAW is exceedingly clear here folks.

col_impact wrote:
It looks like you are trying to use a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument to go against plainly stated rules. That's a wonderful bit of irony.

No, I stated the written rules. Then I stated what is considered when you don't follow the written rules. A difference.

col_impact wrote:
The rule only uses Stubborn as an example. The rule requires that the IC be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule that would logically include him.

Not really an example when it states "as in Stubborn". That actually makes it a reference, a guide, as it were, not just an example.

But yes, the IC would have to be specifically allowed via some clause in the rule to include him, AS IN STUBBORN.

col_impact wrote:
The Stubborn rule has the specific language "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." which logically includes attached ICs

Yes, a unit does include attached models when a rule affects it, what a coincidence.

Or were you talking about "contains at least one model"? Why leave out the other condition if you're going to include the first? Why not require Slow and Purposeful units to ignore moving in the Movement Phase for Shooting only if they are taking a Morale and Pinning Test?

Also can you demonstrate how a unit can still exist and have zero models in the unit with the rule the Detachment gives it?

col_impact wrote:
Even if the example did not for some reason work, the rule is not dependent on the example actually being pertinent. So a debate over Stubborn is not relevant to the discussion of the rule.

It actually is, as I referenced above.

col_impact wrote:
The formation rules lack any specific language to logically include the IC. The rule makes it clear that unit special rules do not automatically confer without a clause enabling them to confer. Just being a unit special rules is not sufficient per the rule.

It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.

col_impact wrote:
Confer means 'grant benefit' so the IC cannot benefit from the formation special rule.

Actually, you're half right, Confer means to either grant, bestow, or have a discussion with. It does not automatically consider benefit in the situation, the context of the sentence must be taken in consideration. As in, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

And then can you show me how Stubborn confers to an IC that doesn't invalidate your argument?

It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.

You can't ignore the rule and call it RAW. The Formation rule make absolutely no specification while the Stubborn rule does. You are simply being willfully obtuse and your approach has no RAW merit and is unreasoned.

Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.

You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."

You have to then look at the formation rule for any thing that looks similar.

The formations rules lack any such clause or any similarly worded clauses.

The benefit/effect of the rule does not confer.

Super simple RAW. You are missing the requisite clause (or similar clause) in the formation rule.


The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.

col_impact wrote:

The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.

And how is that different from the unit ignoring the restriction on charging after arriving via deep strike? Shouldn't that still include the attached IC? I fail to see the difference.

The difference is logic or something. /s

col_impact wrote:

It is about as specific as it is in Stubborn, and since that is the benchmark, I will follow it, instead of your double standard.

You can't ignore the rule and call it RAW. The Formation rule make absolutely no specification while the Stubborn rule does. You are simply being willfully obtuse and your approach has no RAW merit and is unreasoned.

You are correct, I cannot ignore the rule and call it RAW, but I must consider ALL rules, not just one tight interpretations of one sentence and ignoring the rest.

Stubborn says absolutely nothing about Independent Characters, yet it is the standard by which Special Rules are conferred between IC and unit. The phrase "Independent Character" is never mentioned at all. The only way it could be specifically be including the "Independent Character" is if we take the previously stated rule of "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." for its literal word in what it means. Because if the IC is part of the unit, it counts as one of the models in the unit to provide the benefit, in addition, the IC's Leadership is often considered the unit's Leadership due to being the highest available to it (though, not always).

It is all these factors which play in to the IC receiving the benefit of Stubborn, Fearless, Objective Secured, First the Fire Then the Blade, and ...On Target.

It is only by deliberately dismissing a rule and ignoring the context of the standard that you can have a double standard of allowing a Blood Angel Chaplain to provide Zealot to joined a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad, while at the same time denying them the ability to Charge the same turn they arrive from Deep Strike.

col_impact wrote:
Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.

I have. Stubborn affects a unit. ICs count as part of the unit. Pretty simple, yes?

col_impact wrote:
You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."

There is absolutely nothing stating the specific clause "that contains at least one model" is any more important to fulfilling this desire as "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". Indeed, this is a paper argument with no support. While I agree in spirit, as a unit cannot access any special rule unless at least one of its models possesses it in some fashion as well, it is unacceptable as the literal milestone without a specifically addressed line stating, "Unless specifically specified, buy stating 'at least one model with this special rule', the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

col_impact wrote:
You have to then look at the formation rule for any thing that looks similar.

You mean like referring to the unit receiving the benefit? And that the unit would have to have at least one model with this rule in order to even be considered either that unit or a unit from this Formation? What a thought.

col_impact wrote:
The formations rules lack any such clause or any similarly worded clauses.

The benefit/effect of the rule does not confer.

Super simple RAW. You are missing the requisite clause (or similar clause) in the formation rule.

Only by ignoring or dismissing numerous other rules as written are you managing to do this. One cannot call it RAW by ignoring the context of everything connected to it. Unless by "simple RAW" you mean, "only the specific line and not connecting any context to what the rule connects with outside if itself." At which point, you would be correct.

nekooni wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The benefit of Stubborn confers to the IC no problem per the clause. The unit (that contains at least one model with Stubborn) ignores negative leadership modifiers. That includes the attached IC.

And how is that different from the unit ignoring the restriction on charging after arriving via deep strike? Shouldn't that still include the attached IC? I fail to see the difference.

Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?

"that contains at least one model with . . . "

The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).



If you want to house rule that you get to ignore that rule, that is fine.

However, the rules themselves are exceedingly clear.

col_impact wrote:
Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?

"that contains at least one model with . . . "

The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).

Spoiler:

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

You're right, I do NOT see that clause anywhere in this rule you just quoted.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Point to the part of the Stubborn rule that specifically applies coverage to the IC. The rule points out that it is there and you have to identify it. You have to fulfill the rule.

I have. Stubborn affects a unit. ICs count as part of the unit. Pretty simple, yes?

That's not specific language. The rule requires you to point to specific language in the Stubborn rule that allows coverage to apply to the IC. You are being disingenuous and it's obvious.

You are required to point to specific instructions in Stubborn that allow coverage to apply to the IC. Pointing to something that is generic of all special rules is not pointing to a specific instruction in Stubborn.

So do what the rule asks you to do. Find the specific language that is in Stubborn and apply that. You cannot ignore the rule. It is exceedingly clear what it asks you to do.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You have to point to the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ."

There is absolutely nothing stating the specific clause "that contains at least one model" is any more important to fulfilling this desire as "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". Indeed, this is a paper argument with no support. While I agree in spirit, as a unit cannot access any special rule unless at least one of its models possesses it in some fashion as well, it is unacceptable as the literal milestone without a specifically addressed line stating, "Unless specifically specified, buy stating 'at least one model with this special rule', the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Cool, so your answer is that only rules that say "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" will confer to ICs. Feel free to apply that. That won't let the formation rules in question work either and people will correct you on your poor choice of clause selection as it breaks the ability to apply any special rules other than Stubborn to ICs.

When you notice that you have attended to the wrong clause in the Stubborn rule (since it leads to absurd consequences that break the game), you will revisit the rule.

Eventually you will settle on "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." as the only plausible portion of the Stubborn rule that could apply. Reductio ad absurdum.

The rules require you to find the specific language in the Stubborn rule and apply it as a litmus test. You cannot choose to fail to find unless you want to say feth all to the rule and house rule it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Do you see a clause like this anywhere in the rule?

"that contains at least one model with . . . "

The IC rule indicates you need it (or a similar clause with specific language).

Spoiler:

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

You're right, I do NOT see that clause anywhere in this rule you just quoted.

You are just being disingenuous.

Feel free to point to some other clause in the Stubborn special rule that qualifies as language that specifically applies the rule in such a way as to encompass the IC.



To help you out,I have marked in red the only clause that could plausibly apply and I marked in yellow the portions of the rule that could not plausibly apply.

The rule requires you to find the clause and apply it. Obey the rule.

Yes, I'm obeying the rule that the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, so when the rule states the unit may charge, the unit may charge. It's literally that simple



Oh and confer is grant. Not grant benefit, as you claimed. Note the parens? It's giving an example of what is meant by grant instead a bursary or similar monetary sum.

col_impact wrote:
That's not specific language. The rule requires you to point to specific language in the Stubborn rule that allows coverage to apply to the IC. You are being disingenuous and it's obvious.

You are required to point to specific instructions in Stubborn that allow coverage to apply to the IC. Pointing to something that is generic of all special rules is not pointing to a specific instruction in Stubborn.

So do what the rule asks you to do. Find the specific language that is in Stubborn and apply that. You cannot ignore the rule. It is exceedingly clear what it asks you to do.

No, it does not. It has to specifically state, not use specific language, there is a distinct difference.

And Stubborn mentions nothing about granting anything to any model, much less Independent Characters.

col_impact wrote:
Cool, so your answer is that only rules that say "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" will confer to ICs. Feel free to apply that. That won't let the formation rules in question work either and people will correct you on your poor choice of clause selection as it breaks the ability to apply any special rules other than Stubborn to ICs.

No, I am stating that is YOUR answer. Again, specific language is never noted in the Independent Characters and Special Rules section.

col_impact wrote:
When you notice that you have attended to the wrong clause in the Stubborn rule (since it leads to absurd consequences that break the game), you will revisit the rule.

You have limited yourself to one clause of specific language, not I.

col_impact wrote:
Eventually you will settle on "when a unit that contains at least one model . . ." as the only plausible portion of the Stubborn rule that could apply. Reductio ad absurdum.

The rules require you to find the specific language in the Stubborn rule and apply it as a litmus test. You cannot choose to fail to find unless you want to say feth all to the rule and house rule it.

Yes, you are being absurd in this. No, it does not require specific language, it just has to specifically state it as in the Stubborn rule. Deep Strike does not state this, does a joined IC disallow a unit to Deep Strike then? How about Fleet? Is an IC affected by Blind (another referenced rule, by the way) when the unit is in affected by it?

Nothing is specifically stated about Independent Characters in the Stubborn rule. It is only when we consider the aforementioned rule that an IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes do we see that the Independent Character is specifically stated because they are counting as part of that unit for all rules purposes, and Stubborn only specifically states a unit as being a target.

col_impact wrote:
You are just being disingenuous.

Feel free to point to some other clause in the Stubborn special rule that qualifies as language that specifically applies the rule in such a way as to encompass the IC.

Nope, I am being accurate. No specific language is required, it just needs to be specifically stated as in the Stubborn Special Rule, which only specifically states the unit benefiting. Otherwise, Blind would not work as directed nor would Fleet or Deep Strike. One always needs to keep perspective in mind.

Does the Formation rule fulfill the same requirements? Let's see.

Formation rules are applied to the units which then apply them to the models at the point the army list is finalized. This means a Marine in the Vanguard Veteran Squad from said Formation has the ...On Target rule. So long as the unit "Vanguard Veteran Squad" from this Formation exists, there will always be "one model with this special rule" in this unit. As soon as there are no "models with this special rule" in the unit, the unit is effectively destroyed, as the IC returns to being its own unit at the start of the next phase.

Since you have a hard time actually understanding what I'm saying, (I know my logic paths are often less walked, but you refuse to even notice the trail), let me introduce two different scenarios.

Scenario setup: A Jump Chaplain from a Battle Demi-Company Formation has joined the Vanguard Veteran Squad with Jump Packs from the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation in Deep Strike Reserves. The Chaplain carries the USRs: Zealot and Independent Character; Army Special Rule: Chapter Tactics; and Formation Special Rules: Objective Secured (Demi-Company) and Tactical Flexibility. The Vanguard Veteran Squad carries the USR: And They Shall Know No Fear; Datasheet Special Rule: Heroic Intervention; Army Special Rules: Combat Squad and Chapter Tactics; and the Formation Special Rules: On Time... and ...On Target. And the unit arrives from Deep Strike. There is a unit within 6" of the Deep Strike target on an Objective, with Dangerous Terrain between the Vanguard Veteran Squad Deep Strike Target and this unit. This unit does not have Objective Secured.

Scenario 1: The Vanguard Veteran Squad Deep Strikes in to Dangerous Terrain because of Scatter (no Shadowstrike Scout Squads nearby). Very poor rolling leads to every single Veteran and the Veteran Sergeant removed as casualties, but leaves the Chaplain alone. At the beginning of the Psychic Phase, the Chaplain no longer counts as part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad and returns to being a Chaplain model in a Chaplain unit. The Chaplain automatically passes the Morale Check from such a loss, due to Zealot. The Chaplain no longer counts as being part of a Vanguard Veteran Squad from the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation, and so is unable to Charge. However, he is now part of a unit from the Battle Demi-Company with Objective Secured which allows all its units to control Objectives even if someone is closer, and if he is close enough to the Objective, will Hold it despite being unable to Charge.

Scenario 2: The Vanguard Deep Strikes in and avoids failing the Dangerous Terrain tests. At the beginning of the Assault Phase, they are a Vanguard Veteran Squad which has arrived from Deep Strike that turn, and so are permitted to Charge. They Charge, Combat occurs, and neither unit is destroyed and both stay there. The Objective stays Contested, though. The Chaplain is not counting as part of a unit from the Demi-Company at this time, so his Objective Secured rule is unusable so long as he is joined to the Vanguard Veteran Squad.