Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

col_impact wrote:
The IC does not receive the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.

Correct. Nor have I said otherwise. In fact, I've said it numerous times up to this point. You keep confusing your own argument. We are not talking about the IC actually getting the ...On Target rule, nor have I ever said he does always need to. We are actually talking about the effect, aka the benefit.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Right, like calling a unit by its name to receive its effect. IC counts as part of the unit when it receives the effect, just like in Blind and Stubborn. Done.

Now that has been established, what part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." or any other phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

Remember, there are no rules for the 2 units in 1/unit within a unit to use to support this.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC does not receive the Special Rule by just being in the unit, per the IC Special Rules rule.

Correct. Nor have I said otherwise. In fact, I've said it numerous times up to this point. You keep confusing your own argument. We are not talking about the IC actually getting the ...On Target rule, nor have I ever said he does always need to. We are actually talking about the effect, aka the benefit.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Right, like calling a unit by its name to receive its effect. IC counts as part of the unit when it receives the effect, just like in Blind. Done.

Now that has been established, what part of "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..." or any other phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

Sorry, I should have said . . .



since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.



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.

col_impact wrote:
Sorry, I should have said . . .

Spoiler:

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

since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.



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.

Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

Charistoph wrote:
Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.



This is the question that needs to be answered, per the IC Special Rules rule.

What phrase or clause specified in the ...On Target rule itself specifically allows you to include all models?

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.

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.

Yes, you are mispresenting. Nothing in there states that the rule must state, "A unit with at least one model with this special rule", and is not mentioned here so it cannot be taken as a literal requirement. That same phrase Stubborn is how Stubborn works, but that still does not make it a requisite phrase.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does NOT allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves. Inclusion is already established, so to exclude you must then provide the reason.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Again misrepresenting the quote to rely on an exclusive phrase that is never literally stated to be the only method it can confer. Awesome.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does not allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves.

I am not misrepresenting anything. You are not reading the rule.

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.

Yes, you are mispresenting. Nothing in there states that the rule must state, "A unit with at least one model with this special rule", and is not mentioned here so it cannot be taken as a literal requirement. That same phrase Stubborn is how Stubborn works, but that still does not make it a requisite phrase.

So, again, "Veteran Vanguard Squads from this Formation" resolves "a unit with at least one model with this special rule". So long as the unit exists, there will be at least one model with this special rule. From which point, I then ask again, what phrase or clause in ...On Target does NOT allow you to include all models currently in the unit known as Vanguard Veteran Squad in its effect? How is ...On Target more like Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counter-Attack than like Stubborn? Review the conditions of the rules themselves. Inclusion is already established, so to exclude you must then provide the reason.

The general allowance of simply being in the unit is taken away by the IC Special Rules rule. You are not providing the specific permission required.

Point to the portion "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" that allows you to specifically incorporate the IC.

For reference here is how Stubborn does it . . .

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

col_impact wrote:

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

since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.



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.

A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.

this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.

 _ghost_ wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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

since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.



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.

A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.

this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.

The clause or something similar is indeed what you need.

'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is specified in the Stubborn rule itself

'part of the joined unit for all rule purposes' is NOT specified in the Stubborn rule ITSELF.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but col_impact is right. The rules of this game are based off of permissions. The IC rules state that a special rule must specifically state the it is shared by all models in the unit in order for it to apply to models ADDED to the unit (ICs). The On Target rule says that it applies to Vanguard Veteran Squads. That means it applies to the models in that specific entry in the codex. The IC is not part of that unit.

col_impact wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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

since we have established what confer means using Stubborn.



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.

A IC benefits from Stubborn because of its rules. such is that it is a part of the joined unit for all rule purposes..... Thats it. nothing else.

this sentence you fell into a platonic love : 'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is not the clause that includes an IC. in fact this is wishthinking by you. We don't need this clause. What this claus states is that one model with such a Rule is enough that the unit may benefit. compare this to fleet for example. Both Stubborn AND Fleet don't mention IC. so how can you state that this part mentions IC or tells you that IC are included.... seems strange.

The clause or something similar is indeed what you need.

'when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule' is specified in the Stubborn rule itself

'part of the joined unit for all rule purposes' is NOT specified in the Stubborn rule ITSELF.

Stubborn tells you very direct that the whole unit benefits of Stubborn. point.
thats the only thing needed for Stubborn to affect an IC.
The sencence you love to throuw at us is the trigger of the rule. there could also be something like " if there is the 4th of may and it rains and there are models of the table .." thats the very same thing. a trigger . ...

 _ghost_ wrote:

Stubborn tells you very direct that the whole unit benefits of Stubborn. point.
thats the only thing needed for Stubborn to affect an IC.
The sencence you love to throuw at us is the trigger of the rule. there could also be something like " if there is the 4th of may and it rains and there are models of the table .." thats the very same thing. a trigger . ...

Point to the specific thing in the Stubborn rule itself that allows you to incorporate the IC. Quote please.

You have no choice but to point to

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

Just being in the unit does not grant the benefits of the rule, per the IC Special Rules rule.


This is all very obvious. You are just ignoring the clear directive to provide a specific override. There is no general allowance to extend the benefit of the Special Rule to the IC by just being in the unit.

You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.

Point to the rule in the BRB that allows you to use the Dictionary as a rules resource. Page and paragraph please.

It's not a bad house rule to allow using a dictionary to supplement what the BRB says, but it is still a house rule.

In cases where the BRB contradicts the Dictionary, the BRB wins out. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic definitions.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can remove the parens and it cannot alter the rule. So stubborn is simply an example of specificity.
Oh, please define "is" just using the rule book. Hell I'll make it easier - just "a" please.

Point to the rule in the BRB that allows you to use the Dictionary as a rules resource. Page and paragraph please.

It's not a bad house rule to allow using a dictionary to supplement what the BRB says, but it is still a house rule.

In cases where the BRB contradicts the Dictionary, the BRB wins out. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic definitions.

So you simply assume that "confer" means whatever the feth you want it to mean. I'm sorry but how are you supposed to read a sentence if you're not allowed to use a dictionary to look up what a word means?
And we're looking to the Dictionary without it contradicting the BRB. We simply clarify what the BRB actually says, and the BRB says "special rules are not conferred", which in other words means "special rules are not transfered". The rule never says that the effect, beneficial or otherwise, is limited in a similar manner. Nor does it say that a specific wording must be given.

Are you seriously saying that
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.
should be treated the very same as
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not impignorated upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not impignorated upon the unit.
or
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s lamprophonies are not xertzed by the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s lamprophonies are not xertzed by the unit.
According to you all we have to look for is the "example" in the Stubborn rule, right? Dictionary doesn't count, you're not allowed to look up any of the alternate words I used. I'm telling you that's exactly the same meaning, so that's all that counts - right?

This is VERY clear cut. Unlike some other rules, there is no ambiguity in this one.

Before the game starts, when units in your army have not been combined or deployed, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation gives it's units the following special rules:
-Shock Deployment
-First the Fire, then the Blade
-Suppressing Fusillade
-Leave No Survivors

These special rules are added to the unit's special rules BEFORE THE GAME STARTS.

To make it simpler, lets go through pre-game in the order it's done, EXACTLY the same as in the rulebook.
> The armies (you settle on your army list)
> The battlefield (set up the battlefield)
> Objective markers
> Deployment!!!!!!
The skyhammer annihilation force special rules are added to the formation's units during THE ARMIES pre-game section.
In the rulebook, it states (word-for-word) "Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
This means that after THE ARMIES section of pre-game set-up, you can pretend that on the DATA SHEET of both of the ASSAULT and DEVASTATOR squads in the formation, they have the following extra special rule of Shock..., First..., Suppressing..., and Leave.... So now, the assault and devastator squads have a special rule that lets them assault from deep strike and all the shenanigans. It is the unit's special rules immediately following the armies section of pre-game setup. Nobody else gets these special rules.

Independent characters are added to units during DEPLOYMENT. This is AFTER the special rules have already been applied. Now, you might ask, "if the special rule says that the entire UNIT gains a benefit, does the independent character benefit from it too"? Normally, it says that an independent character is considered a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The only time this is not the case, is in the case of SPECIAL RULES.
It says in the rulebook, word-for-word, "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."

Is charging from deep strike a benefit from a special rule? YES.
Does it say anywhere in the special rule that IC's are affected?
NO. The end.

Simply go through a checklist when determining if unit bonuses from special rules affect an IC.
Is the bonus from a special rule?
If yes, does it specifically state that it affects IC's (like it says word-for-word in the rulebook)?

I've broken it down in a way that, hopefully, everyone can understand and agree...

col_impact wrote:The general allowance of simply being in the unit is taken away by the IC Special Rules rule. You are not providing the specific permission required.

Um... No, it isn't. You are making that up. You've quoted it enough times to know that by now. It simply states that the rules do not confer unless specifically stated as in the Stubborn special rule. It does not state that the IC is not considered part of the unit for Special Rules. Those are two different sentences with two very different directions.

col_impact wrote:Point to the portion "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" that allows you to specifically incorporate the IC.

As already stated, it affects a unit and only a unit. Nothing about affecting models or Independent Characters is mentioned in this rule. Therefore the only way Stubborn can confer its benefit between IC and unit is by the rule affecting the unit.

The rule's conditions still need to be taken in to consideration, just like in Fleet and Deep Strike, but that doesn't mean one condition of two in the referenced special rule is the only way it can be accomplished.

col_impact wrote:For reference here is how Stubborn does it . . .

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

Charistoph,

You are simply not reading the rules.



The rule clearly states that unless the special rule specifies it in the rule itself, the benefits of the special rule of the unit are not granted to the attached IC.

Per the rule, simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough to benefit from the units special rules.

Following the rule-recognized standard of Stubborn, the Stubborn special rule has specific language in the Stubborn rule itself which allows models attached to the unit to have the benefit of the Stubborn rule conferred to them.

Stubborn uses this specific clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to confer the benefit of Stubborn to the attached IC.

So without something similar, unit special rules simply do not confer their benefit to the attached IC. Simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough for the IC to be able to benefit from the unit's special rules.


I understand this goes against what you are trying to accomplish, but you cannot ignore rules.

The IC Special Rules rule makes it exceedingly clear that the benefits of special rules are not generally conferred to the attached IC.

They must be specifically conferred with language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).

You don't have any rules as written traction on this one, dude.

So your best bet would be to house rule it with your buddies if this is something that is very important for you to have.

Charistoph wrote:
Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.

I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.

After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.

It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "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."

Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?

Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph,

You are simply not reading the rules.

Sure I am. I am just not ignoring several different rules while doing so and applying non-existant rules while doing so. There is a difference.

col_impact wrote:

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.

The rule clearly states that unless the special rule specifies it in the rule itself, the benefits of the special rule of the unit are not granted to the attached IC.

Incorrect. It must specifically state as in Stubborn, which states nothing about Independent Characters, much less "specifically". The only way Stubborn "specifically" states it includes the IC is by referencing the unit it is with and counting the IC as part of the unit. There is simply no other way that this can be accomplished with the literal words written in this book.

col_impact wrote:
Per the rule, simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough to benefit from the units special rules.

Incorrect. This truly is not about having the rule itself conferred by a unit's special rules. The special rule has to specifically affect the unit as in Stubborn.

col_impact wrote:
Following the rule-recognized standard of Stubborn, the Stubborn special rule has specific language in the Stubborn rule itself which allows models attached to the unit to have the benefit of the Stubborn rule conferred to them.

Incorrect. Stubborn carries zero words which grant benefits to the models attached to the unit. It is only by recognizing that the IC is part of the unit receiving the effect can one see how the IC benefits from this rule. You said it yourself.

col_impact wrote:
Stubborn uses this specific clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to confer the benefit of Stubborn to the attached IC.

Not quite. While it does use that clause, nothing is stated requiring that literal phrase. But I do agree on the spirit of the this clause, to which, a unit from a Formation will always satisfy this rule, can you dispute that?

col_impact wrote:
So without something similar, unit special rules simply do not confer their benefit to the attached IC. Simply being attached to a unit with special rules is not enough for the IC to be able to benefit from the unit's special rules.

And yet, it DOES have something similar. It is referring to a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule, can you dispute that?

col_impact wrote:
I understand this goes against what you are trying to accomplish, but you cannot ignore rules.

But apparently, you can?

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule makes it exceedingly clear that the benefits of special rules are not generally conferred to the attached IC.

True, why do you keep rehashing this? A unit that comes with Relentless does not grant Relentless nor any of its benefits to an IC that joins it. A unit with Fleet requires an attached IC to have it if it plans on using its benefits.

col_impact wrote:
They must be specifically conferred with language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).

Which ...On Target, First the Fire Then the Blade, and numerous other Detachment and Datasheet Special Rules do.

col_impact wrote:
You don't have any rules as written traction on this one, dude.

I have more than you do. I'm not making any of mine up and I'm also not ignoring several other rules while doing so. Have fun with that.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.

I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.

But you did actually ignore the reference to Stubborn and what it means. You may have been mistaken, but that IS taking things out of context or twisting them in an inaccurate way.

Rasko wrote:
After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.

You do note that I agreed with you on this, correct? I skipped over this part because I was in agreement, as I pointed out in an earlier example.

Rasko wrote:
It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "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."

Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?

You skipped the reference to Stubborn before, as I mentioned last time. It was my first point against your list if you recall. You choose not to address it now, as well.

I have gone over how Stubborn does this so many times by now in this thread, and even touched on in it in my earlier response, I really do not feel like addressing it again. If you choose not to actually pay attention to it and actually address it, that is your illogical decision.

Rasko wrote:
Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.

Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist as in Stubborn? Yes.
What more do you need?

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Indeed it is, odd that you get another result, though. And like the others who contest this, it is only by ignoring or twisting what is actually written as noted by col_impact's and blacktoof's attempts.

I used word-for-word quotes straight from the rulebook. I don't think I used them out of context or twisted them in an inaccurate way.

After the pre-game "the armies" setup, the Skyhammer assault squads get another bullet point added to it's existing special rules. The rulebook states, word-for-word, "... formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Therefore, we can agree that it is a special rule of the unit, one that they gained through the formation.

It is not a general blanket rule, it is a special rule. And like all special rules and independent characters, it must pass the checklist:
> "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."

Once again, that is word-for-word. How did I ignore or twist anything that is written in the rulebook?

Is it a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? No.

The Characters doesn't have to have the rule himself to benefit from it (c.f. Stubborn, Stealth). The rule allows the Vanguard unit, of which the IC is a member for all rules purposes, to charge when arriving from deep strike. As has been noted, Painboyz have almost universally been played this way since forever.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You skipped the reference to Stubborn before, as I mentioned last time. It was my first point against your list if you recall. You choose not to address it now, as well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Characters doesn't have to have the rule himself to benefit from it (c.f. Stubborn, Stealth). The rule allows the Vanguard unit, of which the IC is a member for all rules purposes, to charge when arriving from deep strike. As has been noted, Painboyz have almost universally been played this way since forever.

The Stubborn and Stealth special rules both literally start with "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."

The IC doesn't have to have the rule himself because it explicitly states, as per the requirement in the rulebook, that anyone included in the unit has the special rule.
Is stealth and stubborn a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? Yes.
For stubborn and stealth, it says, in the special rule, that a unit gets the buff if at least one model has the rule. It is specifically stated. In words. Not implied.

Guys, I'm don't mean to be argumentative but I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts anything I've said before...
Are the skyhammer bonuses a special rule? Yes.
Do they pass the checklist? No.
For the skyhammer bonus, is it specifically stated? In words. Not implied.

How is "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." functionally different from "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." when we take into account that the IC is part of the Vanguard Veteran squad for all rules purposes?

You are right, the IC is a part of the Vet squad for all rules purposes. EXCEPT in the case of special rules. Why?

"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."
That is straight from the rulebook. Word for word.

"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." and "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." is a HUGE difference.

"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
This explicitly states in words that anyone gets the bonus. IN WORDS. IN THE RULE. There is no implications or ambiguity.

"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
This literally says the vet squad. Where, in this rule, do you see that anyone is included? It must say so IN THE RULE. IN WORDS.

Now, is the IC considered part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes. EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES. Why?
Once again, because it says so, in the rulebook...
"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."

The stubborn/stealth rules have a clause that literally says that it includes everyone.
Does the skyhammer rules have a clause that literally says that it includes anyone other than vanguard vets? No.
Is the IC considered a part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
However, is the bonus a special rule? Yes.
If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist in any way.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." passes the checklist easily.

Yet conferred does not mean benefit, no matter how often Col lies and says it does.

Col - youre at pure uner the bridge territory now, as you are claiming that the 40k ruleset is entirely internally defeind as regards language and meaning atatched to words. Yet you know that to be false, otherwise you would have given a page cite for "is"

Your credibility just hit a new low.

Rasko wrote:The Stubborn and Stealth special rules both literally start with "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."

So, here is where we study the phrase some of you are so keen on and part of what you initially ignored. Where is "Independent Character" specifically stated in that phrase? Here's a hint, it involves another rule you think is being overridden.

Rasko wrote:The IC doesn't have to have the rule himself because it explicitly states, as per the requirement in the rulebook, that anyone included in the unit has the special rule.
Is stealth and stubborn a special rule? Yes.
Does it pass the checklist? Yes.
For stubborn and stealth, it says, in the special rule, that a unit gets the buff if at least one model has the rule. It is specifically stated. In words. Not implied.

Guys, I'm don't mean to be argumentative but I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts anything I've said before...
Are the skyhammer bonuses a special rule? Yes.
Do they pass the checklist? No.
For the skyhammer bonus, is it specifically stated? In words. Not implied.

Skyhammer and Shadowstrike special rules specifically include Independent Characters as much as Stubborn or Stealth do. Review your checklist, it is flawed.

Rasko wrote:You are right, the IC is a part of the Vet squad for all rules purposes. EXCEPT in the case of special rules. Why?

"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."
That is straight from the rulebook. Word for word.

That does not mean that the rules do not include the IC as part of the Veteran Squad, it just literally means that the rules are not placed upon the IC as if it started the army list process on the datasheet. Stubborn, the standard by which we are supposed to use, never specifically states "Independent Character". The only way Stubborn confers the benefit upon the IC, is by being in the unit that fulfills the requirements and conditions of the rule. There is no other way to look at it and still have it function as literally written.

Rasko wrote:"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." and "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." is a HUGE difference.

In terms of exact words, yes there is a difference. In terms of conditions, if we are looking at a Vanguard Veteran Squad, do we not have a unit containing at least one model with this special rule? Even while using it, why can you not accept it?

Rasko wrote:"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
This explicitly states in words that anyone gets the bonus. IN WORDS. IN THE RULE. There is no implications or ambiguity.

Agreed, mostly, but you are also missing a condition to allow the IC to gain benefit from the rule. Even then, it only works if we take another rule in to account. I explained above, I will add it below.

Rasko wrote:"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
This literally says the vet squad. Where, in this rule, do you see that anyone is included? It must say so IN THE RULE. IN WORDS.

By two rules. "When an IC has joined a unit, it counts as being part of that unit for all rules purposes." "A Vanguard Veteran Squad in this Formation". An IC joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad counts as being part of that unit for all rules purposes. Is the IC then considered part of "A Vanguard Veteran Squad in this Formation"? Why, yes, he is. IC receives benefit when the rule triggers the effect so long as he is in that unit and still fulfilling the requirements.

Rasko wrote:Now, is the IC considered part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes. EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES. Why?
Once again, because it says so, in the rulebook...
"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."

This says nothing about the IC not being considered part of the Veteran Squad for special rules. It only states that the IC does not get the rules just because he joins. Remember the lesson on Stubborn.

Rasko wrote:The stubborn/stealth rules have a clause that literally says that it includes everyone.
Does the skyhammer rules have a clause that literally says that it includes anyone other than vanguard vets? No.
Is the IC considered a part of the vet squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
However, is the bonus a special rule? Yes.
If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist? "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist in any way.
"A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." passes the checklist easily.

Yes it does, buy stating "a unit" which fulfills the rule's conditions gains a benefit. This is what Stubborn states. On Target states the exact same thing.

Rasko wrote:
This is VERY clear cut. Unlike some other rules, there is no ambiguity in this one.

Before the game starts, when units in your army have not been combined or deployed, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation gives it's units the following special rules:
-Shock Deployment
-First the Fire, then the Blade
-Suppressing Fusillade
-Leave No Survivors

These special rules are added to the unit's special rules BEFORE THE GAME STARTS.

To make it simpler, lets go through pre-game in the order it's done, EXACTLY the same as in the rulebook.
> The armies (you settle on your army list)
> The battlefield (set up the battlefield)
> Objective markers
> Deployment!!!!!!
The skyhammer annihilation force special rules are added to the formation's units during THE ARMIES pre-game section.
In the rulebook, it states (word-for-word) "Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
This means that after THE ARMIES section of pre-game set-up, you can pretend that on the DATA SHEET of both of the ASSAULT and DEVASTATOR squads in the formation, they have the following extra special rule of Shock..., First..., Suppressing..., and Leave.... So now, the assault and devastator squads have a special rule that lets them assault from deep strike and all the shenanigans. It is the unit's special rules immediately following the armies section of pre-game setup. Nobody else gets these special rules.

Independent characters are added to units during DEPLOYMENT. This is AFTER the special rules have already been applied. Now, you might ask, "if the special rule says that the entire UNIT gains a benefit, does the independent character benefit from it too"? Normally, it says that an independent character is considered a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The only time this is not the case, is in the case of SPECIAL RULES.
It says in the rulebook, word-for-word, "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."

Is charging from deep strike a benefit from a special rule? YES.
Does it say anywhere in the special rule that IC's are affected?
NO. The end.

Simply go through a checklist when determining if unit bonuses from special rules affect an IC.
Is the bonus from a special rule?
If yes, does it specifically state that it affects IC's (like it says word-for-word in the rulebook)?

I've broken it down in a way that, hopefully, everyone can understand and agree...

Thank you for spelling out what I've been trying to figure out how to say since I first read this thread.

So the general consensus is:

A) ICs in Wulfen/Skyhammers/etc. can run and assault/deepstrike and assault/etc.

B) ICs cannot.


Sorry, not about to wade through 14 pages where some posts are longer than most threads.

Goobi2 wrote:
So the general consensus is:

A) ICs in Wulfen/Skyhammers/etc. can run and assault/deepstrike and assault/etc.

B) ICs cannot.


Sorry, not about to wade through 14 pages where some posts are longer than most threads.

Your B seems to contradict your A.

but its a nice short sumary of the two different positions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet conferred does not mean benefit, no matter how often Col lies and says it does.

Col - youre at pure uner the bridge territory now, as you are claiming that the 40k ruleset is entirely internally defeind as regards language and meaning atatched to words. Yet you know that to be false, otherwise you would have given a page cite for "is"

Your credibility just hit a new low.

Nos, your use of confer goes against the rules. You can't do that and call your argument RAW.

I use 'confer' in the way the BRB uses it and only in the way the BRB uses it.

Similarly, I use 'shoot' in the way the BRB uses it and not by some dictionary meaning that would require my models to actually be firing projectiles at one another.

The rules do not allow me to replace the BRB meaning with some random dictionary meaning that has nothing to do with the context of the game.

The BRB holds Stubborn up as the way in which special rules are 'conferred'.

Stubborn does not grant the Stubborn rule to the IC and yet it confers the rule.

Stubborn extends the effect of Stubborn (which is what the BRB means by 'confer') and it does so by virtue of this clause . . .

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

So in the BRB 'confer' means to grant the benefit of or to extend the effect of a special rule.

And the IC Special Rules rule requires that the special rule have specific language in the rule itself (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC.

The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply being in the unit is not sufficient to extend the benefits of special rules to the IC.


Since Charistoph has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF that would incorporate the IC, his argument is wholly invalid, and the On Target rule does not extend its benefit to the IC.

From now on Charistoph, instead of spamming this thread with blocks of multi-quotes simply indicate in one sentence whether you are going to continue to ignore the IC Special Rules rule or not, because that is the only thing relevant to this discussion.


This thread has boiled down to one side obeying the rules and the other side ignoring rules.

The IC Special Rules rule is in the BRB. You cannot ignore it.