Switch Theme:

Formation rules and non-formation IC  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph,

The IC rule requires you to find the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the rule to specifically incorporate the IC.

So keep looking until you find it. You are not allowed to fail to find. Keep staring at the rule until you find the clause. You can do it.


Here is a list of how the IC is affected in the rules you mentioned and how you are supposed to resolve the conferring of the rule to the IC (according to my argument).

Blind - affects "all models in the unit"; Blind confers to IC

Fleet - "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"; Fleet does not confer to IC. A unit with Fleet that has a non-Fleet IC attached cannot use Fleet.

Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule"; Deep Strike does not confer to IC. A unit with DS that has a non-DS IC attached cannot use DS.

Stubborn - "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"; Stubborn confers to IC


Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).

Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC

Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC

Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC

Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC


In fact, any and all unit rules are conferred to the IC per your argument! All unit rules would meet the minimum of your read of the Stubborn rule requirement (affect "a unit").

According to your argument, the IC rule "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" trumps all other rules, including the IC rule that is specifically about Special Rules and acts at the same level as the "counts as" rule.

So, according to your argument, an IC (that has neither Fleet or Deep Strike) attached to a unit with Fleet or Deep Strike would be granted Fleet and Deep Strike per the "counts as" rule.

Also, non-Jump and non-Jet Pack ICs would be granted Jump and Jet Pack rules by simply being joined to units that are Jump and Jet Pack.


Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.


However, your argument is false. Since the IC rule about Special Rules acts at the same level, it has the power to provide exceptions to the "counts as" rule. You cannot dispute this. So keep looking at the Stubborn rule until you find the part that incorporates the IC. All you have to do is stop acting helpless and read the rule.


Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.



This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/02/08 22:06:47


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
The IC rule requires you to find the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the rule to specifically incorporate the IC.

So keep looking until you find it. You are not allowed to fail to find. Keep staring at the rule until you find the clause. You can do it.

That is not in dispute. Reread my argument.

col_impact wrote:
Here is a list of how the IC is affected in the rules you mentioned and how you are supposed to resolve the conferring of the rule to the IC (according to my argument).

Blind - affects "all models in the unit"; Blind confers to IC

Fleet - "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"; Fleet does not confer to IC. A unit with Fleet that has a non-Fleet IC attached cannot use Fleet.

Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule"; Deep Strike does not confer to IC. A unit with DS that has a non-DS IC attached cannot use DS.

Stubborn - "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"; Stubborn confers to IC


Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).

Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC

Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC

Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC

Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC


In fact, any and all unit rules are conferred to the IC per your argument! All unit rules would meet the minimum of your read of the Stubborn rule requirement (affect "a unit").

What a strange thought because that would be correct for those rules that target a unit with an effect. But all requirements still need to be taken in to account as well. An IC is considered part of the unit when determining Fleet and Deep Strike capability as well as participating with them. Why is this is a difficult concept for you?

col_impact wrote:
According to your argument, the IC rule "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" trumps all other rules, including the IC rule that is specifically about Special Rules and acts at the same level as the "counts as" rule.

No, this is not a trump, its just that you don't have anything that actually counters it. You do not have anything to exempt the IC from being considered part of the unit when it is affected by a special rule. You are confusing possession with affection.

col_impact wrote:
So, according to your argument, an IC (that has neither Fleet or Deep Strike) attached to a unit with Fleet or Deep Strike would be granted Fleet and Deep Strike per the "counts as" rule.

Also, non-Jump and non-Jet Pack ICs would be granted Jump and Jet Pack rules by simply being joined to units that are Jump and Jet Pack.

Incorrect, as I have already stated. See, you know nothing about my argument. Reread what I have written in the earlier parts of this thread. ICs are considered part of the unit, both for determining "all models in the unit" and when "the unit" rerolls its run, or is declared to be in Deep Strike, and participating in the event. Or are you saying they be left behind because the IC is still its own unit?

col_impact wrote:
Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.

All I see is you still failing to understand the difference between grant and affect and then taking it to ridiculous extremes.

Wraithflight would not qualify as it is not a unit affecting rule
"Wraithflight: When moving, Canoptek Wraiths can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground. However, they cannot end their move on top of other models and can only end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the models on top of it."

Now, I know you have a hard time differentiating between model and unit, so I will explain. There are two types of entities that exist called "Canoptek Wraiths", one is a model and one is a unit. Wraithflight does not state that allows Canoptek Wraith Units to move over all other models, just Canoptek Wraiths. Now, remember, if a rule does not specifically address a unit, it is not affecting a unit. Since there are two entities which fall under this name, but no mention of unit, it defaults to being the models that are affected.

A point I referenced before, I believe.

col_impact wrote:
However, your argument is false. Since the IC rule about Special Rules acts at the same level, it has the power to provide exceptions to the "counts as" rule. You cannot dispute this. So keep looking at the Stubborn rule until you find the part that incorporates the IC. All you have to do is stop acting helpless and read the rule.

Yes, indeed, read the actual rule. While you are at it, read what people have said regarding this. The most interesting part of this discussion is the same arguments that require ignoring what the rules actually say, not just what they want it to say.

col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?

Here is are a couple rules for you to reference for an interesting interaction:
"Counter-attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.

If, when charged, the unit was already locked in combat, the Counter-attack special rule has no effect.
"

Now, the IC is part of the unit, and will be part of the reaction of the unit. But, unless he possesses the Coutner-Attack rule himself, he will not get the bonus. But it seems that according to your standard, the IC would indeed get the bonus.

"Move Through Cover
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra D6 when rolling to move through difficult terrain and is not slowed by charging through difficult terrain. In most circumstances, this will mean that, when moving, the unit rolls 3D6 and picks the highest roll. Furthermore, a model with the Move Through Cover special rule automatically passes Dangerous Terrain tests.
"

In this case, we have a rule that is both a unit-affecting rule and a model-affecting rule. An IC without MTC that is joined to a unit with MTC will benefit from being able to move with the extra die on the roll through difficult terrain or when Charging through it. However, if the IC moves through Dangerous Terrain while in the unit, he does not get to automatically pass the Dangerous Terrain test.

See the differences?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

col_impact wrote:

Here is a list of how the IC is affected according to YOUR argument (meet Stubborn's requirement of being a unit rule).

Blind - "the unit" = unit rule, Blind confers to IC
- The effect of Blind, not the Special Rule, clearly confers to ICs. It's even mentioned within the Ongoing Effects paragraph on ICs interacting with it.

Fleet - "a unit" = unit rule, Fleet confers to IC
"A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" clearly states that only units which consist exclusively of models with Fleet are able to benefit from this special rule

Deep Strike - "the unit" = unit rule, Deep Strike confers to IC
"all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule" - it's clearly not usable if you join a unit of models with DS with an IC without DS. It clearly states that the entire unit cannot benefit from the rule if not all models possess it.

Stubborn - "a unit" = unit rule, Stubborn confers to IC
´"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule " this obviously works as long as you have a single model with Stubborn.

You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different, I'll try to put it in sentence:

If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.

This is perfectly in line with the rules as written, based on the "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects" section. Note how it speaks of a "beneficial or harmful effect, such as bestowed by the Blind special rule".

The argument for the other side is that in order to be affected by a Special Rule the IC must possess it or it must be made abundantly clear than an IC gains the Special Rule when joining, and for "abundantly clear" pretty much the only wording considered sufficient is "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".


So this entire shitfest of a thread can be boiled down to:

Is the effect of a Special Rule (eg "being blinded" or "being able to charge after deep striking" or "not reducing Ld checks by number of lost models") to be treated via the "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects" or via the "Special Rules" section of the Intependent Character special rule?

I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:


col_impact wrote:
Cool, so I can now join an Overlord to my Wraiths and get fleet and Wraithflight! After all, the Overlord "counts as part of the unit of Canoptek Wraiths for all rules purposes" which includes Fleet and Wraithflight.

All I see is you still failing to understand the difference between grant and affect and then taking it to ridiculous extremes.

Wraithflight would not qualify as it is not a unit affecting rule
"Wraithflight: When moving, Canoptek Wraiths can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground. However, they cannot end their move on top of other models and can only end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the models on top of it."

Now, I know you have a hard time differentiating between model and unit, so I will explain. There are two types of entities that exist called "Canoptek Wraiths", one is a model and one is a unit. Wraithflight does not state that allows Canoptek Wraith Units to move over all other models, just Canoptek Wraiths. Now, remember, if a rule does not specifically address a unit, it is not affecting a unit. Since there are two entities which fall under this name, but no mention of unit, it defaults to being the models that are affected.

A point I referenced before, I believe.



Why don't you reference the actual rules on this issue? There is no rule in the BRB that says you default to referring to a model as opposed to unit. You made that up. Here are the actual rules.

Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.


So is the IC a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, yes or no? If yes (and you cannot choose no), then according to your argument, the IC gets Wraithflight.

Spoiler:
6. Unit Type: This refers to the unit type rules in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. For
example, a unit may be classed as Infantry, Cavalry or Vehicle, which will subject it to a
number of rules regarding movement, shooting, assaults, etc.


So, is the IC that is attached to a unit of Canoptek Wraiths part of the unit that is classed as Beast? If it's part of a unit that is classed as Beast then the "counts as" clause causes it to have all the associated rules granted to it, according to your argument.

Spoiler:
Beasts have the Fleet special rule.


So there is a clear chain of permission according to your argument for an Overlord to have Wraithflight and Fleet. Awesome!

Your argument is premised on ignoring rules however, so it is not RAW. You keep flat out ignoring the IC rule regarding Special Rules.
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.


Point to the exact words in the Stubborn rule that allow the Stubborn rule to be specifically conferred to the IC.

Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.


You have to fulfill the rule. So point to the exact words that allow the Stubborn rule to be specifically conferred to the IC.

Exact quote, please.


Charistoph wrote:And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?


The application of the Special Rule to the IC is denied because it does not have the wording "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", per the IC Special Rules rule. It requires that wording in order to be specifically applied to the IC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:


I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?


Huh? You are wildly confused here about Blind. Blind is a special rule for the attacker. The party that is the recipient of the negative effect in no way has the Blind special rule. They just have the negative effect of it (if it was successfully applied against them), which is really no different than losing a Wound - you just have to keep track of it. It's a collective 'wound' applied to the unit and one that lingers for the IC even if he detaches.

nekooni wrote:
If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.


Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.

nekooni wrote:

You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different

No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 02:48:11


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:


I can see why there is a camp saying "they're Special Rules so their effects are treated under the Special Rules section", but I don't really understand how you reconcile it with Blind and similar rules that obviously should affect(!) models that do not have the Blind special rule? Wouldn't the targeted enemy unit - including it's ICs - all have to have the Blind rule?


Huh? You are wildly confused here about Blind. Blind is a special rule for the attacker. The party that is the recipient of the negative effect in no way has the Blind special rule. They just have the negative effect of it (if it was successfully applied against them), which is really no different than losing a Wound - you just have to keep track of it. It's a collective 'wound' applied to the unit and one that lingers for the IC even if he detaches.

So you'd agree with this statement: The special rule Blind creates an effect on a unit that is treated as an Ongoing Effect. Correct?

nekooni wrote:
If some kind of effect targets a unit, the effect will also affect attached ICs.


Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.

That's not what I said. I was talking about effects, and you yourself just stated that the effect of Blind is not a Special Rule but an Ongoing Effect, which I agree with by the way.

But why is the effect of a different special rule NOT an Ongoing Effect then? There's a trigger condition that must be met (unit arrives via deep strike) and there's an effect (gains permission to charge), so if the trigger is met the effect comes into play - but you say "the Blind effect is clearly an Ongoing Effect targeting an enemy unit" while also saying "the -may charge from deep strike- effect targeting a friendly unit is clearly not an Ongoing Effect". That's what's confusing me.

nekooni wrote:

You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different

No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.

It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 02:50:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




nekooni wrote:

nekooni wrote:

You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different

No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.

It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.


He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.

So if an IC joins a Beast unit then the IC is granted the Fleet rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 03:41:19


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Why don't you reference the actual rules on this issue? There is no rule in the BRB that says you default to referring to a model as opposed to unit. You made that up. Here are the actual rules.

I have already referenced them. Do not blame me if you are too focused on creating strawmen based on arguments never presented. In your world, there are three statements that are incompatible with each other in the IC rules. And please try to note it as I say this time, again, I do not dismiss any of them, only those who say the IC do not gain the benefits of rules are dismissing at least a portion of them.

For some reason you believe that these:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit
...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Spoiler:
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

are incompatible with this:
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.

However, they are not incompatible. I have explained this several times over this and other threads.

First:
Spoiler:
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Then:
Spoiler:
Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

Along with:
Spoiler:
9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

I will also remind you that this:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit
...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
does not state it becomes part of its ALE, but just joins the unit and counts as part of it. Why is this important? For two reasons.

First:
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.

Second:
col_impact wrote:
So is the IC a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, yes or no? If yes (and you cannot choose no), then according to your argument, the IC gets Wraithflight.

The answer to this is, yes, he is a model in the unit of Canoptek Wraiths, but the IC does not become a Canoptek Wraith model, nor is Wraithflight conferred upon him, as stated above, and because he is not literally in the ALE and thus the datasheet's special rules are not applied to him. And remember, not all rules in an ALE go to all models in the unit, the (Character) Type is quite standard as being unique to one original model of Imperium units, and then there are the Exarchs of the Eldar as well.

And yet, there is a way to "confer" special rules. This is done "as in the Stubborn special rule". Stubborn states nothing about Independent Characters nor granting anything to any models. How then does Stubborn confer its special rule between IC and unit? Let's see what the rule states without any of its conditions:
Spoiler:
Stubborn
When a unit ... ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.

There's the target and its effect. Still no mention of the IC or granting anything to anyone but an effect to the unit. So how does Stubborn "confer" from a unit to IC? By the IC being part of the unit. Remember:
Spoiler:
Joining and Leaving a Unit
...
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

We do not ignore the conditions placed on the rule for them to go in to affect. If it requires all models to have the rule for the unit to use it, then the IC is included in the "all models in the unit" requirement. If the rule applies a benefit to a unit from a formation, the joined IC does not operate as their own unit but as the unit they joined. And so any of those types of rules the IC may have (such as Objective Secured) would not be passed on to the unit the IC joined unless like the Stubborn USR it only requires one model in the unit to be effective or specifically states the IC and the unit he joins.

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:And does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?

The application of the Special Rule to the IC is denied because it does not have the wording "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule", per the IC Special Rules rule. It requires that wording in order to be specifically applied to the IC.

You did not answer the questions. Does not a Shadowstrike Kill Team Vanguard Veteran Squad not have at least one model with the special rule? Yes or No?

I did not ask what ...On Target lacks to apply itself to ICs joined to the unit, as I have already demonstrated how. Is there anything to deny the IC being part of the unit in ...On Target?

col_impact wrote:
Special Rules are not Ongoing Effects. Special Rules are Special Rules and use the rules for Special Rules.

NOW you're getting it! That's the point I've been saying all along. Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.

col_impact wrote:
No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.

Incorrect again. It needs to be a unit-affecting rule, not a unit rule, a slight difference. Either the IC counts as part of the unit (not ALE) for ALL rules purposes after it joins, or for none. No partiality or ambiguity is allowed in this statement, no matter how much you wish it to be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:
He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.

This is a lie. I have stated no such thing. Review again what I have actually written, not what you believe I have written.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 05:02:23


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.


The rules disagree and directly contradict your argument. The rules actually cite Stubborn as an example of a rule that is conferred to the IC based on something specified in the rule itself. You keep going outside of Stubborn for the specific mechanic, but the IC Special Rules states that it is "specified in the rule ITSELF (as in the Stubborn special rule)". So keep examining the Stubborn rule ITSELF until you find it.

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.


So, per the rule, the IC is conferred the Stubborn rule. That cannot be denied, and you have yet to point to the specific portion in the rule itself that allows the conferring.

Since you define confer as "grant a rule" (and this is your definition and not one from the BRB) then the outcome in your argument is that the IC has the Stubborn rule.

Similarly, since you define confer as "grant a rule" then the outcome in your argument (which relies on the "counts as" rule to do the conferring) is that the IC gets the Fleet rule when attached to a unit with Fleet.


You won't be able to make sense of the IC Special Rules rule and Stubborn case until you realize that the BRB is using confer to mean "grant the benefit [of the rule]" and not "grant [the rule]".

No where is 'confer' defined in the BRB so the game could be using the term in a game way that is not directly a dictionary use (although "grant a benefit" is directly a dictionary use)..

You cannot definitively say that the BRB means exactly "grant a rule" since there is no definition in the BRB to settle the issue absolutely one way or the other.

Similarly, when the BRB uses 'shoot' it does not mean literally as from a dictionary the 'firing projectiles out of a gun' but rolling a dice on behalf of a miniature representation of a 'shooting weapon' on a toy to see if a 'hit' is scored in the game. 'Shoot' is similarly not defined in the BRB and we are left with inferring what 'shoot' means.

So as always, when the BRB does not provide explicit definitions, we need to infer their actual in-game meaning, and the IC Special Rules rule is exactly what we need to examine to sort out what confer actually means.



So again, keep looking at Stubborn until you find in the rule itself the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the conferring and sort out what conferring actually means in game terms.

Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.


Your argument so far has been wholly unable to figure out what happens in the case of Stubborn. If you use the "counts as" IC rule to explain how a rule is conferred and define conferring as "grant a rule" then you will have all sorts of unintended logical consequences (such as granting the Fleet rule to ICs that join units with Fleet).

My argument:
The clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is the specific language that allows the benefits of the Stubborn rule to be conferred to the IC. There needs to be similarly worded clauses to confer the benefit of unit Special Rules to the ICs that join them.

I have followed the IC Special Rules rule and have pointed to the portion in the Stubborn rule ITSELF that makes it all work. You have yet to obey that rule.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 08:16:22


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 08:49:23


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.

And which is the problem entire with Cols argument.

That and confusing Confer and Benefit. WHich has been corrected so often that now Col seems to ignore that this destroys any ability for their argumetn to function...
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

col_impact wrote:
nekooni wrote:

nekooni wrote:

You've essentially ripped all other words out of each of these rules to try and build a strawman of "this is what you're arguing" while what Charistoph (and others, like me) have been saying was something different

No Strawman. Charistoph is arguing that all that is required for a Special Rule to be granted to an IC is that the Special Rule is a unit rule.

It is a strawman since you overexaggerated the results of what you claim Charistoph says - while he never even argued that a Special Rule should be granted to an IC. I think he quite literally refuted that claim at least 5 times in this thread. He has repeatedly stated that it is the effect which is being transfered, not the rule itself - and that that this is the difference between how you think the rules work and how he thinks the rules work.


He has stated that unit Special Rules are granted to the IC solely by virtue of the IC being part of the unit.

So if an IC joins a Beast unit then the IC is granted the Fleet rule.

No he did not, stop lying.
And what about my arguments ,any response ?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I hadnt spotted that total fabrication before nekooni.

Either that, or Col still doesnt understand the differences in grant and benefit, and the actual arguments presented.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
Special Rules PROVIDE effects, and it is those effects that are transferred between IC and unit, depending on those conditions. A Blood Angel Captain joined to a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not actually GET Stubborn, but benefits from Stubborn by being in a unit that meets the conditions required.

The rules disagree and directly contradict your argument. The rules actually cite Stubborn as an example of a rule that is conferred to the IC based on something specified in the rule itself. You keep going outside of Stubborn for the specific mechanic, but the IC Special Rules states that it is "specified in the rule ITSELF (as in the Stubborn special rule)". So keep examining the Stubborn rule ITSELF until you find it.

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.

So, per the rule, the IC is conferred the Stubborn rule. That cannot be denied, and you have yet to point to the specific portion in the rule itself that allows the conferring.

That is not what that states, though. The rule must specify in the rule itself AS IN THE STUBBORN RULE. In other words, Stubborn sets the standard for the method of conferring, not that Stubborn automatically confers. And Stubborn does not directly or specifically grant its rule to any models. It never mentions Independent Characters.

Read the rules and apply the context of them all.

col_impact wrote:
Since you define confer as "grant a rule" (and this is your definition and not one from the BRB) then the outcome in your argument is that the IC has the Stubborn rule.

Similarly, since you define confer as "grant a rule" then the outcome in your argument (which relies on the "counts as" rule to do the conferring) is that the IC gets the Fleet rule when attached to a unit with Fleet.

Incorrect. Your inability or unwillingness to understand my position after numerous explanations is baffling. Learn how to alter your paradigm.

I define "confer a rule" as "grant a rule" as that is the literal definition of it without the rulebook providing another use or definition. Can you provide another?

I have stated that unless specifically stated, the Special Rules are not granted between unit and IC. The rule also states that one of these ways is as in Stubborn. Well, Stubborn does not grant Stubborn to its models. It does not grant Stubborn to ICs. It never specifically mentions ICs. It only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met.

Same thing is taken in consideration with Fleet. Fleet only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met. Fleet requires all models to have the rule. An IC without Fleet in a unit with Fleet will prevent any movement rerolls, because it failed to meet the conditions of the rule.

You are the one who is confusing my argument to mean that when a unit benefits from a rule, that benefit is conferring the rule itself to all the models of the unit. Odd when I've said the exact opposite numerous times by now.

But if you think you have the proper answer to this, please quote the Stubborn rule and highlight the words "model", "independent character", or "confer" and any of "confer"'s synonyms.

col_impact wrote:
You won't be able to make sense of the IC Special Rules rule and Stubborn case until you realize that the BRB is using confer to mean "grant the benefit [of the rule]" and not "grant [the rule]".

Umm... You do realize that is exactly what I have been stating all along, don't you? Which is why I stated "a Blood Angel Captain does not actually GET Stubborn from a Dark Angels Tactical Squad, he just benefits from it."

col_impact wrote:
No where is 'confer' defined in the BRB so the game could be using the term in a game way that is not directly a dictionary use (although "grant a benefit" is directly a dictionary use)..

Correct to a point. The "benefit" can only be implied due to how Stubborn "confers" it between IC and unit. It's good to see you are finally starting to understand the perspective of my argument.

col_impact wrote:
You cannot definitively say that the BRB means exactly "grant a rule" since there is no definition in the BRB to settle the issue absolutely one way or the other.

Actually I can since that is the literal definition of "confer". When you have a verb that is followed by a noun like this, the verb is then applied to the noun. So, unless we have indications otherwise (as provided by Stubborn, which I have stated numerous times by now, and you have just stated yourself above), "confer a rule" literally means "grant a rule", not just "grant the benefit of the rule".

Context matters.

col_impact wrote:
So again, keep looking at Stubborn until you find in the rule itself the portion of the Stubborn rule that allows the conferring and sort out what conferring actually means in game terms.

Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

Your argument so far has been wholly unable to figure out what happens in the case of Stubborn. If you use the "counts as" IC rule to explain how a rule is conferred and define conferring as "grant a rule" then you will have all sorts of unintended logical consequences (such as granting the Fleet rule to ICs that join units with Fleet).

Yes, it grants the benefit of the rule to the IC, because the IC is being counted as a member of the unit. Without this previous statement, a Dark Angels Captain would not be able to provide a Codex Marines Vanguard Veteran Squad with Stubborn, or vice versa. The "at least one model with this special rule" is the condition that allows the IC to confer the benefit of the rule to a unit it joins.

You still have not adequately demonstrated, though, that the Captain and Vanguard Veteran Squads are considered part of the same unit for Stubborn and From the Sands We Rise, but not for things like Objective Secured, or ...On Target. And that is the key failure of your argument. You make an unsupportable separation.

col_impact wrote:
My argument:
The clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is the specific language that allows the benefits of the Stubborn rule to be conferred to the IC. There needs to be similarly worded clauses to confer the benefit of unit Special Rules to the ICs that join them.

Zero clauses are literally told to be the method. If that was the case, then we would have to include all clauses of Stubborn, so a unit with Slow and Purposeful would have to be taking a Morale or Pinning Check in order to not count has having moved that Movement Phase when firing Heavy, Salvo, and Ordnance Weapons, or to Charge after firing such Weapons.

One needs to understand the target and applications as well as the conditions. Blind does not specify affecting Independent Characters, but its effect does include ICs if the unit he is in is fails the Test. If a Psyker power affects a unit, the IC will be included in the benefit. So why cannot a Detachment Special Rule that affects a unit not also affect the IC included when every other rule does?

col_impact wrote:
I have followed the IC Special Rules rule and have pointed to the portion in the Stubborn rule ITSELF that makes it all work. You have yet to obey that rule.

No. You have misrepresented my argument for being something other than it was. You have then taken that argument used it as your own. You claim that I am saying that unit-affecting rules are granted to the whole unit and that is wrong, yet you have been saying that is exactly what Stubborn does.

I have said that unit-affecting rules affect the unit, and ICs are considered part of the unit when those effects come in to play. Stubborn requires a unit to only need one model to carry the rule AND to be taking a Morale and Pinning Check in order to benefit the IC. If the IC is being affected by something like Deathstalker's old Ld rule that lowers that IC's Leadership and the unit that IC is in is Stubborn and hit by the Nighbringer's Gaze of Death, the IC would not be able to benefit from Stubborn any more than the rest of the unit.

...On Target requires a unit with a specific name to perform an action to apply its benefits, IC with it nor not. Once it completes that action, the rule applies its benefit. If an IC is with the unit when it completes that action, it receives the benefit as part of the unit.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




nosferatu1001 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is, the only reason we know that Stubborn is explicit enough to confer to ICs is because the rules tell us so. Nothing in Stubborn explicitly calls out ICs, just as ...On Target doesn't explicitly apply to ICs. They both do, though, because the IC is part of the unit, and the rule in question (Stubborn or ...On Target) affects the entire unit, of which the IC is a part.

And which is the problem entire with Cols argument.

That and confusing Confer and Benefit. WHich has been corrected so often that now Col seems to ignore that this destroys any ability for their argumetn to function...


Point to the definition of confer in the BRB. You cannot. It is not defined in the BRB. The BRB, like 'shoot', 'remove from play, and 'Kerr-runch' is using idiosyncratic definitions. It can do that. It's a game.

Otherwise, point to the rule in the BRB that lets you take the Dictionary as rule authority over the BRB.

In the case of 'confer' you take its actual usage in the BRB above any other source.

You infer from the usage in the BRB that confer means "grant the benefit of the rule" and not "grant a rule".

The Stubborn rule confirms this. Stubborn is directly cited by the BRB as showing as "specified in the rule itself" how rules are conferred

"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is a clause that is "specified in the rule itself" that grants the benefit of the rule to the IC but does not actually grant the rule.

Therefore to "confer a rule" means to grant the benefit of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote:


I define "confer a rule" as "grant a rule" as that is the literal definition of it without the rulebook providing another use or definition. Can you provide another?

I have stated that unless specifically stated, the Special Rules are not granted between unit and IC. The rule also states that one of these ways is as in Stubborn. Well, Stubborn does not grant Stubborn to its models. It does not grant Stubborn to ICs. It never specifically mentions ICs. It only provides a benefit to a unit when all its conditions are met.


That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

I will use a definition of 'confer' as inferred from its usage in the BRB. That is how you argue RAW.

As you note, since Stubborn does not actually grant Stubborn to ICs then confer can not plausibly mean "grant a rule".

Since Stubborn grants the benefit of the rule to attached ICS (as specified in the rule itself in this clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"), then we can infer that confer means "grant the benefit of the rule" and can only mean that. The BRB points directly to the case of Stubborn for what confer means and how confer works in the game. So the BRB gives no other plausible choice.

I have obeyed the rules and based my definition of 'confer' on the rules themselves and my definition of 'confer' is plausible in the context of the rules and my definition of 'confer' is the only plausible definition of 'confer' in the context of the game.

You are wholly unable to provide a definition of confer that is plausible in the context of the rules. In fact unless you adjust your meaning of confer (from "grant a rule" to "grant the benefit of the rule") then you are in the awkward position of having to state that the BRB is lying to you.

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.


So keep examining Stubborn until you find the thing that is "specified in the rule itself" that can explain what confer means and how it works.

Spoiler:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or
Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless
and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.


Come on! You can do it! Put down that dictionary which the BRB does not authorize you to use and infer what 'confer' means based on the context of the Stubborn rule itself.

As you note context is important. So what does 'confer' mean exactly in the context "specified in the [Stubborn] rule itself" and in the context of the BRB?

Or alternatively just admit you are using a house ruled definition of confer from some other source than the BRB.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 17:10:40


 
   
Made in de
Water-Caste Negotiator





 koooaei wrote:
This issue came up last game. There's a formation of vanguard vets that can charge out of deepstrike. It says that the unit can deepstrike and than emidiately charge. Also, they have an innate rule that the squad can re-roll charge range and don't loose attacks on multicharge. So, what he did is joined in Marneus Calgar with some sort of termi armor to deepstrike. Performed a deepstrike and charged in re-rolling distance and not loosing attack.

Was it correct? Is there anything preventing from doing it? IC don't share special rules with the rest of the squad as they're not part of this formation but if the special rule states it affects the squad?


This was the original question wich is more a general issue in my eyes:

A IC from another Formation / Detachment joins a Unit witch is part of a Formation. How is the IC affected by the Formation rule/s the Unit has.

The endless quote battle that's going on here doesn't seem to help solving this issue. I've read so many responses witch varied from well logical reasoned stuff to trolling n then to esotherical stuff. For every ones's taste there was something to read.

For me it comes down two two simple things

1. what are the requirements needed to trigger a given rule? (Difference between Stubborn, Fleet, Blinding,.....,)
2. what effect is caused by the triggered rule and what is the target?

Both questions answered allow to solve pretty much the vast majority of rules questions in this case.

So if the requirements of a rules are given then the rule itself is triggered and the rule causes the effect. this can be anything... from leting deepstrike to allow an assault or re-roll any given D6 or whatever.

Important here!! the bearer of a Special rule and the target of the special rule can be the same model/unit. but they don't need to be the same. So its pretty easy to understand that its a difference between getting a Special rule or to be only the target of an effect caused by any special rule.

in the case above by the original poster i'D say that it is fine rule wise to attach Marneus and let the Deepstrike+ Assault happen.
The reason is simple. The formation gives the rule to the Unit. the unit is allowed to do that stuff. but there is no word that there are any additional requirements... ( suhc as found with Fleet) attaching a Ic to the unit does neighter remove the Special rule nor does it make the Unit beeing the unit.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?

col_impact wrote:I will use a definition of 'confer' as inferred from its usage in the BRB. That is how you argue RAW.

As you note, since Stubborn does not actually grant Stubborn to ICs then confer can not plausibly mean "grant a rule".

Odd, since I have said exactly that at least 5 times now. Will you pay attention then?

col_impact wrote:Come on! You can do it! Put down that dictionary which the BRB does not authorize you to use and infer what 'confer' means based on the context of the Stubborn rule itself.

It uses English, therefore I am obligated to use English where it does not define the rulebook does not infer a definition or actually provide one.

col_impact wrote:As you note context is important. So what does 'confer' mean exactly in the context "specified in the [Stubborn] rule itself" and in the context of the BRB?

Or alternatively just admit you are using a house ruled definition of confer from some other source than the BRB.

Or you could actually read what I've written instead of conflating your opinion in to a strawman argument against something I never actually said.

_ghost_ wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
This issue came up last game. There's a formation of vanguard vets that can charge out of deepstrike. It says that the unit can deepstrike and than emidiately charge. Also, they have an innate rule that the squad can re-roll charge range and don't loose attacks on multicharge. So, what he did is joined in Marneus Calgar with some sort of termi armor to deepstrike. Performed a deepstrike and charged in re-rolling distance and not loosing attack.

Was it correct? Is there anything preventing from doing it? IC don't share special rules with the rest of the squad as they're not part of this formation but if the special rule states it affects the squad?


This was the original question wich is more a general issue in my eyes:

A IC from another Formation / Detachment joins a Unit witch is part of a Formation. How is the IC affected by the Formation rule/s the Unit has.

The endless quote battle that's going on here doesn't seem to help solving this issue. I've read so many responses witch varied from well logical reasoned stuff to trolling n then to esotherical stuff. For every ones's taste there was something to read.

For me it comes down two two simple things

1. what are the requirements needed to trigger a given rule? (Difference between Stubborn, Fleet, Blinding,.....,)
2. what effect is caused by the triggered rule and what is the target?

Both questions answered allow to solve pretty much the vast majority of rules questions in this case.

So if the requirements of a rules are given then the rule itself is triggered and the rule causes the effect. this can be anything... from leting deepstrike to allow an assault or re-roll any given D6 or whatever.

Important here!! the bearer of a Special rule and the target of the special rule can be the same model/unit. but they don't need to be the same. So its pretty easy to understand that its a difference between getting a Special rule or to be only the target of an effect caused by any special rule.

in the case above by the original poster i'D say that it is fine rule wise to attach Marneus and let the Deepstrike+ Assault happen.
The reason is simple. The formation gives the rule to the Unit. the unit is allowed to do that stuff. but there is no word that there are any additional requirements... ( suhc as found with Fleet) attaching a Ic to the unit does neighter remove the Special rule nor does it make the Unit beeing the unit.

This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?


Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.

My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and in picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game. In fact it does it a lot and is to be expected.


So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

RAW.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 18:42:45


 
   
Made in de
Water-Caste Negotiator





Charistoph wrote:

This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.


I know. but this claim is without any backup. The moment the IC is joined its no longer a tagetable unit. it becomes a model of another unit with a bunch of special rules. As there is no rule to my knowlede excludes IC in a unit when the term " unit" as target is used.... it comes down to the point that this is wish thinking or whatever.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?


Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.

My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game.


col_impact:

the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 18:16:43


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 _ghost_ wrote:


col_impact:

the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary


That is literally nothing more than a house rule.

My approach is to adhere to the usage of the words in the game since it is a game and words can take on idiosyncratic meanings that are much different than real world definitions (e.g. shoot, move, assault, charge, remove from play, Kerr-runch)

The usage of the words in the BRB always trumps the OED. The words are used in the context of a bizarre game and the OED has no relation to that context.

The problem you face is that you cannot apply the OED definition in the case of Stubborn and the rules indicate that Stubborn is the standard for how Special Rules are conferred. The OED definition and the usage of confer in the BRB are in direct conflict. Stubborn does not grant the rule to the IC. Stubborn 'extends the affect of the rule' to the IC, which is what the BRB means by 'confer'.

So which is it? Is the BRB directly contradicting itself or lying to you?

OR

Are you just not using 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it?


I will use confer in the way the BRB uses it. The OED is not an authority recognized by the rule. It's not a bad house rule to use the OED to help understand rules, but it's still just a house rule and will always get trumped by the actual usage in the BRB of the word in question. It's a game. The language 40k uses is a specialized language filled with terms and usages of words that are unique to it.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 18:41:08


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?

Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.

I did not say that the OED overrides the BRB, you are misrepresenting what I said. I said that without a proper definition, we resort to using the standard definition of things. It is how we know what "is" means without it being defined by the BRB. Since this is a British publication, using that nation's standard seemed more appropriate than using Merriam-Webster. And I also said that only be moving past the base definition as described in Stubborn does it make any sense. Which actually leads to:
col_impact wrote:My definition comes from usage of the word in the BRB and in picking the only plausible meaning. The actual usage in the BRB deviates from the OED. The BRB can do that. It's a game. In fact it does it a lot and is to be expected.

Indeed, I believe I have also pointed that out several times in this thread, why do you

col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

RAW.

All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?

Here are two things I posted long on it in the beginning:
Charistoph wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
If the rule is a part of the unit the IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

If you read further, it says that IC are NOT affected by squad's special rules unless it's specified. Yes, they are affected by rules but not special rules...

Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules
purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

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.


That's why i'm a bit confused. It first says that they are for rules and purposes. Than says no special rules.

It does not say no special rules, it just says they do not confer. If a unit's datasheet states the unit has Relentless (such as a Terminator Squad), a Power-Armoured HQ does not have Relentless conferred upon him.

It also allows an out to work like Stubborn does. Stubborn does not state it confers, though, it just affects the unit. So a Blood Angels Captain joining a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not gain Stubborn from the Tactical Squad, but his Leadership will not be negatively affected during Morale Checks or Pinning Tests since he is part of the unit.

If you continue reading the IC rules, it mentions that if an IC is in a unit affected by a special rule, such as Blind, than that effect continues on the IC even if the IC leaves the unit. Blind is a rule that if a certain test is failed, all models in the unit have their WS and BS reduced. So we see a rule affecting a unit also affects the IC, since they are considered "in the unit".

There are some who argue that if a unit is called by its name, it is not referencing anything but the original models of the unit. They have not supported this by any rule, though. And since having a rule affect a unit by name, is still affecting a unit, the IC is still included in the affect just as much as he is for Shooting, Stubborn, or Blind.


Charistoph wrote:When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

So, we have a rule that says ICs do not have the special rules conferred on them, or in other words, do not have the special rules "granted or bestowed" upon them (using the Oxford online dictionary, how much more British can you get?). Yet, it does provide an exception if it specifies as in the Stubborn Special Rule.

Well, let's review the Stubborn Special Rule for how it confers on the IC:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead."

Hmm, no mention of conferring (or any of its synonyms) or Independent Character exists in this rule. So how then does an IC not have its Leadership negatively affected while in a Stubborn unit? He doesn't get it. It is not bestowed or conferred upon him, yet the IC rule specifically points this rule out as the IC as the example of how an IC does get the rule from a unit (or vice versa).

The only possible solution is to review another portion of a rule and the target of the Stubborn Special Rule. From Joining and Leaving a Unit in the IC rules:"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." What is the target of the Stubborn rule? A unit that is somehow carrying the rule.

Then we continue on to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which states:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.
"

Which indicates that Special Rules that affect a unit that the IC has joined WILL be affected as well, even if the IC leaves the group afterward. 92% of the unique rules provided by Formations are rules that have a Trigger and an effect, such as "When a unit with this special rule arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, it may Charge in the next Assault Phase." If the IC is with the unit when this Trigger occurs, it receives the beneficial effect from the rule just as much as it would be disabled if the unit was hit with a Blind Attack. Conversely, if the IC joins after the trigger, it is not affected.

So say you have a Vanguard unit with this Formation rule to charge and you have Marneus Calgar both waiting in Deep Strike Reserves as separate units and they both roll to come in on the same turn. You Deep Strike in the Vanguard unit, and seeing an opportunity for this unit to have even more punch, you Deep Strike Marneus Calgar in to Coherency with the unit (you gutsy player you) with no Mishaps. The Vanguard unit has fulfilled the conditions of its rule and the Trigger is activated and the unit receives the benefit. Calgar is not part of this unit when it happens as he arrives later and isn't considered a member of the unit till the end of the Movement Phase. This unit will not be able to charge because Calgar does not have any permission or Special Rule effect to override the Deep Strike and Reserves conditions.

BUT, if Calgar is in the Vanguard unit from deployment and Deep Strikes with the unit, he receives the benefit of the rule since he was a member of the unit when it received the effect of the Special Rule.

Do you see the difference?



_ghost_ wrote:
Charistoph wrote:

This has been the stance I have been stating this whole time. What is being argued against it is that the target could not possibly include a joined IC, even though they are to be counted as part of the unit.

I know. but this claim is without any backup. The moment the IC is joined its no longer a tagetable unit. it becomes a model of another unit with a bunch of special rules. As there is no rule to my knowlede excludes IC in a unit when the term " unit" as target is used.... it comes down to the point that this is wish thinking or whatever.

Indeed it is. But they are so vehement about not allowing it for their own reasons they try to make up rules out of whole cloth.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 19:08:16


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in de
Water-Caste Negotiator





col_impact wrote:
 _ghost_ wrote:


col_impact:

the Oxford Dictionary is ALLWAYS the default one for any words in the BRB. That chances in the very moment the BRB makes a specific definition about any rule term. from that moment we as player know that this word/words/ phrase has a specific defined meaning in the Rule Context. for EVERY other situation we reffer to the Dictionary


That is literally nothing more than a house rule.

My approach is to adhere to the usage of the words in the game since it is a game and words can take on idiosyncratic meanings that are much different than real world definitions (e.g. shoot, move, assault, charge, remove from play, Kerr-runch)

The usage of the words in the BRB always trumps the OED. The words are used in the context of a bizarre game and the OED has no relation to that context.

The problem you face is that you cannot apply the OED definition in the case of Stubborn and the rules indicate that Stubborn is the standard for how Special Rules are conferred. The OED definition and the usage of confer in the BRB are in direct conflict. Stubborn does not grant the rule to the IC. Stubborn 'extends the affect of the rule' to the IC, which is what the BRB means by 'confer'.

So which is it? Is the BRB directly contradicting itself or lying to you?

OR

Are you just not using 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it?


I will use confer in the way the BRB uses it. The OED is not an authority recognized by the rule. It's not a bad house rule to use the OED to help understand rules, but it's still just a house rule and will always get trumped by the actual usage in the BRB of the word in question. It's a game. The language 40k uses is a specialized language filled with terms and usages of words that are unique to it.


Wow you use a lot of words here. So where exactly is it important if Stubborn itself is conffered to a attached IC ? When in our given Question does that matter?
Stubborn gives us a pattern of how Special rules and especially their effects are handled in regard to IC and Units they joined.

In this pattern Stubborn shows us it doesn't matter if a Ic gets that rule or not. By the very fact that the Ic counts as a member of the affected unit it is effected by Stubborn or any other rule that works in a similar pattern.
The pattern i mention is this that the effect affects the whole unit. -> Ic joins a unit -> IC is a part of the unit. Impression how easy it can be.

According to you unique approach to the rules. You litteraly said that you make it different than me and then described my approach with different words. You would not be able to only read the BRB without using the Oxford dictionary... if you still insist on being able to do so i humbly suggest you to buy a Greek(insert random language instead) BRB. don't take language training and never use a dictionary. just the BRB. Perhaps you send me a pm with the results? im honestly interested!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

RAW.

All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?



Re-read what I wrote and note the bold.

So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 _ghost_ wrote:

Wow you use a lot of words here. So where exactly is it important if Stubborn itself is conffered to a attached IC ? When in our given Question does that matter?
Stubborn gives us a pattern of how Special rules and especially their effects are handled in regard to IC and Units they joined.

In this pattern Stubborn shows us it doesn't matter if a Ic gets that rule or not. By the very fact that the Ic counts as a member of the affected unit it is effected by Stubborn or any other rule that works in a similar pattern.
The pattern i mention is this that the effect affects the whole unit. -> Ic joins a unit -> IC is a part of the unit. Impression how easy it can be.

According to you unique approach to the rules. You litteraly said that you make it different than me and then described my approach with different words. You would not be able to only read the BRB without using the Oxford dictionary... if you still insist on being able to do so i humbly suggest you to buy a Greek(insert random language instead) BRB. don't take language training and never use a dictionary. just the BRB. Perhaps you send me a pm with the results? im honestly interested!



Your argument is different than mine.

This is my argument

Spoiler:
So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

RAW.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 19:44:13


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:That's a nice house rule definition of 'confer'. Where did you get that definition? Is it a recognized source of authority in the BRB?

Oxford Online Dictionary. I even linked it once. Where do you get your house rule definition?


Please point to a rule in the BRB that recognizes the OED over the BRB. You cannot so you are house ruling.


Page one, first line, first sentence.

What do you mean it doesn't say that? Sure it does, how are you going to prove that's not what whatever's written on page one means what it means if you're not allowed to use a dictionary?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

RAW.

All true, as I have stated repeatedly since the first page. So why do you think ...On Target is not including all models that are part of the unit while Stubborn does?



Re-read what I wrote and note the bold.

So confer means 'grant the benefit of the rule' or 'extend the effect of the rule' and not 'grant the rule' in the BRB. Stubborn proves this.

As specified in the Stubborn rule itself, the clause 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is what specifically incorporates the IC in the Stubborn rule and grants the benefit of the rule (ie confer).

Special Rules require a similar clause to 'grant the benefit of their rules' (ie confer). Those Special Rules are required to do what Stubborn does and specify in the rule itself with a clause, per the IC Special Rules rule.

I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?

Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?

Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.


The burden is on you to satisfy this.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 20:04:22


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?

Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.


The burden is on you to satisfy this.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .


The rule does specify that the entire unit gets to charge. The IC is part of the unit the same way that an IC in a Stubborn unit is part of the unit. "A unit with at least one model with..." and "A unit with..." are functionally identical, because they both affect the whole unit. We must have collectively said this close to fifty times by now.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
I did. You said they require a similar clause. I agree. I do not agree that it is the same exact literal phrase to be found in Stubborn, because nothing actually states that. So I ask again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?

Keep in mind, that the differences between a Formation-granted Special Rule and Universal Special Rules are a matter of perspective. USRs like Stubborn and are meant to go back and forth between ICs and units need to have slightly different words than Datasheet rules with only non-IC units will be carrying them, or ICs are not meant to transfer them to their unit. It really isn't difficult when you actually read the rules in context. Sometimes they need a decoder, but oftentimes, their target is quite clear.


The burden is on you to satisfy this.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character . . .

Already satisfied. IC counts as part of the unit. Vanguard Veteran Squad is a unit. Unit receives effect from rule, just as in Stubborn. So, again, What part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." does not allow you to include all models in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The IC does not receive the benefit of the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.


The IC receives the benefit of the Stubborn Special Rule from this specific clause:

'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule'

You need a similarly specific clause to count as "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule). This is obvious.


[red = correction applied]

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 20:45:58


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

So, col_impact. Just out of curiosity. A Farseer from a Warhost detachment, joins a unit of Kabalite Warriors from an AD. The Farseer is the only model within 3" of an objective. The opponent has a Tactical Squad from a CAD within 3". Who (if anybody) controls the objective? Why?

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Happyjew wrote:
So, col_impact. Just out of curiosity. A Farseer from a Warhost detachment, joins a unit of Kabalite Warriors from an AD. The Farseer is the only model within 3" of an objective. The opponent has a Tactical Squad from a CAD within 3". Who (if anybody) controls the objective? Why?


Per the IC Special Rules rule, the Tac Squad.

Although I suspect most people overlook the pertinence of the IC Special Rules rule in this case, so expect some resistance on enforcement, since they got used to playing it one way.

The IC Special Rule is not overlooked in the case of ICs joining units that DS and assault.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: