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.

You still haven't explained how you're arbitrarily allowed to decide what confer means if you're not allowed to use a dictionary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You still haven't explained how you're arbitrarily allowed to decide what confer means if you're not allowed to use a dictionary.

The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for the standard of how special rules are conferred.





Stubborn doesn't grant the rule Stubborn to the IC. The IC is granted the benefit of Stubborn by virtue of the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" that is specifically stated in the rule itself and that logically incorporates the IC. So confer has to mean 'to grant or extend the benefit of a rule' in the game of 40k.

I don't mind people using a dictionary to supplement the BRB. It's a fine house rule. However a dictionary meaning cannot contradict the BRB meaning. BRB usage of a word always trumps the dictionary. It's a game and games frequently have idiosyncratic meanings to the words they use.

And ...On Target tells us the unit has that special rule, and that the unit (not parts of it, the unit) may charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. One rule says the unit can do something, the other says the unit can do something, neither of the rules explicitly call out ICs as being affected.

Indeed. One side is absolutely ignoring the ilex, and is also claiming that 40k is internally defined yet cannot point to the 40k definition of "is", NOR back up their claim that the rules require us to follow their mind up deft ion.

Luckily it's only one poster doing this, do they can resins my be ignored.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And ...On Target tells us the unit has that special rule, and that the unit (not parts of it, the unit) may charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. One rule says the unit can do something, the other says the unit can do something, neither of the rules explicitly call out ICs as being affected.

On Target does not specifically incorporate attached models to the unit (as in the Stubborn special rule). The IC Special Rules rule requires that.



Stubborn has a very specific clause that logically incorporate attached models to the unit (which ICs are)

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed. One side is absolutely ignoring the ilex, and is also claiming that 40k is internally defined yet cannot point to the 40k definition of "is", NOR back up their claim that the rules require us to follow their mind up deft ion.

Luckily it's only one poster doing this, do they can resins my be ignored.

The BRB use of confer contradicts your dictionary definition. So you must take the BRB use over the dictionary. The BRB is using in an idiosyncratic way, just like it does with the word "shoot".

The BRB use of "a" and "is" do not contradict your dictionary definitions so feel free to use the dictionary to assist you with your reading comprehension of those challenging words. The BRB does not have an idiosyncratic use of those words.

...On Target uses the exact same reasoning as Stubborn for allowing the IC to charge with the unit. At the time the rule triggers the unit in its entirety is allowed to charge. The IC never gets the rule (i.e. it is not conferred to the IC), he's just given permission to charge by virtue of being part of the unit. A reading where "confer" is taken to mean "allow to benefit" as opposed to "bestow" or "grant" is in opposition both to the meaning of the word and to what the rule actually says.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

Are you guys seriously arguing that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for how special rules and IC's work.
They provided an example, in stubborn, as to how they wanted special rules to have a clause of some sort if they wanted it to effect IC's.
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
How did the skyhammer/shadowstrike rules pass the checklist in the same manner as Stealth/Stubborn???

In stubborn/stealth, there is a clause that includes all models in the unit. That is the precedence it sets.
The BRB specifically states that it wants special rules to have a clause like stealth/stubborn, when it wants special rules to affect IC's.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
The skyhammer/shadowstrike special rules DO NOT HAVE A CLAUSE!

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.

Is Bound and Leap a rule that affects the unit? Yes.
Is the IC considered a part of the Wulfen unit for all rules purposes? Yes.
However, is the ability to run and charge, a special rule? Yes.
If yes, then does it pass the required IC special rule checklist in the same manner as stealth/stubborn? No
Therefore, no. IC's in Wulfen units will not gain the ability to run and charge.
Why must we go through this checklist when Bound and Leap says that it effects the unit and the IC is part of the unit? Because of this sentence 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."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...On Target uses the exact same reasoning as Stubborn for allowing the IC to charge with the unit. At the time the rule triggers the unit in its entirety is allowed to charge. The IC never gets the rule (i.e. it is not conferred to the IC), he's just given permission to charge by virtue of being part of the unit. A reading where "confer" is taken to mean "allow to benefit" as opposed to "bestow" or "grant" is in opposition both to the meaning of the word and to what the rule actually says.

Once again, you ignore that special rules must pass the checklist in the same manner as stubborn.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. No one is disputing that.
However, is the ability to charge, a special rule?
If yes, then does it pass the IC and special rule checklist in the same manner as stubborn?
Since the ability to charge is a special rule granted to the unit, any IC's in the unit must pass the checklist because
"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."

Come on guys...
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."

This whole issue is very clear-cut. I'm really not seeing how you guys can argue it is another way.

The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive

Your checklist is flawed

A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive

Your checklist is flawed

A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.

Nope. Per the IC Special Rules rule . . .



And as we know from Stubborn, the BRB uses confer as 'to extend the benefit of the rule' so by default a unit's special rules are not extended to the IC.

How does the IC Special Rules rule say you can get around that?

If an allowance is "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"

So again we look to the Stubborn rule and we see how that is done.

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


The On Target rule is only a unit rule. It lacks the requisite specification (as in the Stubborn special rule) to extend the benefit of its rule to the IC.


Super simple RAW. Simply read and apply the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive
Your checklist is flawed
A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.

Ok, so to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you...
You are saying that we can just remove the "as in the Stubborn special rule" part of
"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."
Because it is in parenthesis? "Semantically, an example" Um... Ok... I wish I could just remove text from rules to fit my needs... But we'll just see where this takes us...

So now, in your world, we would have
"Unless specified in the rule itself, 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."
And from here, you are saying that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
gives the ability to the IC because it is fundamentally part of the unit and therefore bypasses "Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character". And the reason you can bypass this now, is because

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test."

Well gak man. I don't even know what to say.

Rasko wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule has a parens for stubborn. You can remove it without affecting the rule. It is, semantically , an example. Nothing states it is exhaustive
Your checklist is flawed
A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test.

Ok, so to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you...
You are saying that we can just remove the "as in the Stubborn special rule" part of
"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."
Because it is in parenthesis? "Semantically, an example" Um... Ok... I wish I could just remove text from rules to fit my needs... But we'll just see where this takes us...

So now, in your world, we would have
"Unless specified in the rule itself, 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."
And from here, you are saying that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
gives the ability to the IC because it is fundamentally part of the unit and therefore bypasses "Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character". And the reason you can bypass this now, is because

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"A unit of... Means every model has, which is at least as good as at least one model. It passes the real raw test."

Well gak man. I don't even know what to say.

It's quite simple I'm not sure where you are getting mixed up with your checklist. Here is my checklist.

"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
IC is considered part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad"
"Vanguard Veteran Squad (including IC)" may charge.

Checklist works.

"Special rules are not conferred to the IC"

Okay. The IC does not get "...On Target"
However the following people have the "... On Target" rule
2x5 Scouts
5 Vanguard Veterans.

Does this rule allow the Scouts to charge? No, It doesn't say anything about the unit that has the rule.
It says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"

So a revised checklist.

Is it a "vanguard Veteran Squad" from this formation? - Yes
IC is added. Is considered part of the unit.
Is it a "vanguard Veteran Squad" from this formation? - yes
is IC conferred "...On target" - no

"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation may charge"
Is it still a "vanguard Veteran squad from this formation" ? -> yes -> it may charge.

Getting bogged down on the semantics of "a unit containing one model with" is pointless. No model in the unit NEEDS "...On target" ! even if only the scouts had the rule it would still work, as it doesn't require anyone in the unit to have it.

The only requirement is that they be a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation"
Since ICs are considered part of the unit, it is still a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation".

As long as it is a "Vanguard Veteran squad from this formation" it may charge.

I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about.
I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!

Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says:
"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."

So, the only question should be... Is "On Target" a special rule that effects the unit or not?
If it is, it must have a clause (like the stubborn special rule), that allows the IC to benefit from it! The only way your checklist works is if you ignore the special rule section entirely!
For all rules, the IC is considered a part of the unit EXCEPT for special rules!

How is this so hard to understand...

I understand what you are saying completely. You are saying that since "On Target" grants the Vet squad the ability to charge, an IC part of the Vet squad fulfills this requirement and therefore, gains the ability to charge.
But you conveniently ignore that ALL SPECIAL RULES must pass an additional checklist when determining if a unit's special rule applies to an IC attached to it.

col_impact wrote: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.

Liar. I have. Your acceptance is not contingent on my having already done it, especially when you have made zero effort to disprove it using written rules in context. I have pointed to language in the On Target rule itself that is as specific as in Stubborn. Not that you actually bother to read or listen.

col_impact wrote: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.

Quit making continuously inaccurate statements and lies and I might consider it, except I have never once stated or implied I am ignoring any of the IC Special Rules, you have repeatedly, though. The problem is with this situation is that one simple rule does not define this situation. It requires many rules working in synch in order to work. You are just assuming something breaks another so it overrides it instead of looking for the harmony of the situation and read the rules as they are written.

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

I agree. Please stop ignoring a plethora of rules, please.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
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.

Are you guys seriously arguing that
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "A unit containing at least one model with this special rule..."
The BRB tells us to look at Stubborn for how special rules and IC's work.
They provided an example, in stubborn, as to how they wanted special rules to have a clause of some sort if they wanted it to effect IC's.
> "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
How did the skyhammer/shadowstrike rules pass the checklist in the same manner as Stealth/Stubborn???

Yes. I am saying they are equal clauses when considering ICs.

What is a Vanguard Veteran Squad? The Datasheet tells us it is a unit name. No other entity exists which is called "Vanguard Veteran Squad", so it is the same as saying, "a unit with this name".

Rules provided on a unit's datasheet are rules that are applied to the models in the unit. Formation special rules are rules that are applied to the unit, which then are applied to the models within those units. As you said so yourself and to which I agreed. This fulfills "at least one model with this special rule".

Keep in mind, though, "applied" here does not mean that their conditions are fulfilled and the benefits are reaped. This would be ignoring the literal wording of the rules themselves. The "applied" in this situation is more like a sticker, icon, or banner being carried by the model.

Therefore, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule". Can you logically refute this?

Consider also that the IC is as much a part of the unit with at least one model containing a special rule when the unit benefits from Stubborn as it is in a Vanguard Veteran Squad it has joined.

Rasko wrote:In stubborn/stealth, there is a clause that includes all models in the unit. That is the precedence it sets.
The BRB specifically states that it wants special rules to have a clause like stealth/stubborn, when it wants special rules to affect IC's.
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
The skyhammer/shadowstrike special rules DO NOT HAVE A CLAUSE!

Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."

Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."

In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.

In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.

So, in short, yes. It does pass the same checklist that Stubborn asks for, unless you are also saying you can only include an IC with a Detachment Special Rule when they are taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, too?

;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.

I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about.
I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!

Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says:
"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."

You are the one ignoring what's written there. I covered it in my post.

The units Special rules ARE NOT CONFERRED upon the IC. That is what the quote tells us, and that is true.

"...On Target" is NOT CONFERRED.

But as I pointed out, the rule does not have to be conferred.

If we refer back to the checklist.

Is it a "Vanguard Veteran squad from the formation" ? - Yes

The ICs presence doesn't change this. As long as the above is true then the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.

Rasko wrote:
I don't care about semantics either. I don't care about the whole confer thing they are talking about.

Semantics is the study of the English language. They are as much part of a rules discussion as logic.

Rasko wrote:
I'm talking about what it says in the rulebook under "Special Rules". How can you totally ignore what is written there?!

Once again, I'll quote, under the Special Rules section it says:
"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."

So, the only question should be... Is "On Target" a special rule that effects the unit or not?
If it is, it must have a clause (like the stubborn special rule), that allows the IC to benefit from it! The only way your checklist works is if you ignore the special rule section entirely!
For all rules, the IC is considered a part of the unit EXCEPT for special rules!

How is this so hard to understand...

First off, we are not ignoring anything. This stance of yours requires that we ignore numerous facets of the IC rules, our stance is actually quite inclusive.

Second, "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." is not exactly the same as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules do not affect the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules do not affect the unit." Especially since we have a rule two sections down that 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."

Third, we are looking at the Rules in question as "Target", "Conditions", "Effect", not literary requirements that are not specifically stated. "at least one model with this special rule" is as much a condition as "from this Formation" or "if all models in this unit possess this special rule" or "take a Morale Check or Pinning Test" or "if the first model is placed within...."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.

Liar. Provide proper written evidence of my statement's inaccuracies. I have points out the specific language, repeatedly. You have even provided the same arguments yourself.

It seems like we aren't understanding each other. So let's break it down, step-by-step. And hopefully, come to an agreement.

Charistoph wrote:
Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."

Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."

In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.

In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.

I agree 100% with you here. There is nothing wrong with this.

The IC passes the only requirement of needing to be part of a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad. So, as per the bonus, this means the entire unit gets to charge.
This will, obviously, include the IC because the IC is a part of the unit.
I'm with you so far.

HOWEVER, under SPECIAL RULES in the rulebook, it states:
"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."

Now, what does this mean?
I'm not saying that the IC is not a part of the Vet squad. The IC would, normally, get the ability to charge.
However, that sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.
Because IC's and Special Rules must pass a final checklist, as per the rulebook.

You can't just stop at giving the IC charge because it is a SPECIAL RULE OF THE UNIT! And like all unit SPECIAL RULES and IC's, it must pass an additional checklist of having a CLAUSE. Like Stubborn has.

Please let me know if we still don't understand each other or if I am misinterpreting you.

That sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.

I believe here is where we are misscommunicating.

The sentence under special rules says that the IC is not conferred the special rules of the unit.

It doesn't mention benefit.

It lists Stubborn as an exception which still doesn't make much sense.

HOWEVER moving onto the second part of your statement.
" it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN"

It does.
Stubborn says "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
On Target says "vanguard Veteran squads from this formation"

They both tell us who is affected
For stubborn it is any unit containing at least one model with stubborn.
For on target it is [/u]Vanguard Veteran squads[/u] from the formation (regardless of any of their models having the rule or not)

They both Target "the unit" (which includes IC)

There is nothing else under stubborn to suggest ICs. This is litertally the only way stubborn could be used contextually for
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"

Charistoph wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
;tldr: Charistoph still has been wholly unable to point to specific language in the On Target rule ITSELF (as in Stubborn) that would incorporate the IC, so his argument is wholly invalid.

Liar. Provide proper written evidence of my statement's inaccuracies. I have points out the specific language, repeatedly. You have even provided the same arguments yourself.

The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply being in a unit (or a Veteran Vanguard Squad) does not allow the IC to benefit from the special rules of the unit.

The special rule must have specific language that would incorporate attached models (as in Stubborn) that would otherwise not be incorporated.

"when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" logically and specifically incorporates attached models.

You have been wholly unable to point to any such specific clause that would logically and specifically incorporate attached models.

You have only pointed to a general "in a unit" clause, but the IC Special Rules rule is clear that this is not sufficient.

The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that the default state is that unit rules do not extend their benefits to attached models unless the special rule has a clause with logic that would specifically incorporate attached models (e.g. "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule")

I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.

He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.

Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"

harkequin wrote:

That sentence, under special rules, says that IF an IC would benefit from A SPECIAL RULE OF A UNIT, it must have a CLAUSE, LIKE STUBBORN, for it to apply to the IC.

I believe here is where we are misscommunicating.

The sentence under special rules says that the IC is not conferred the special rules of the unit.

It doesn't mention benefit.

It lists Stubborn as an exception which still doesn't make much sense.

This is because you are not using confer the way the BRB uses confer. Don't do that. Use confer in the way that the BRB uses confer.

Charistoph wrote:
Yes. I am saying they are equal clauses when considering ICs.

What is a Vanguard Veteran Squad? The Datasheet tells us it is a unit name. No other entity exists which is called "Vanguard Veteran Squad", so it is the same as saying, "a unit with this name".

Rules provided on a unit's datasheet are rules that are applied to the models in the unit. Formation special rules are rules that are applied to the unit, which then are applied to the models within those units. As you said so yourself and to which I agreed. This fulfills "at least one model with this special rule".

Keep in mind, though, "applied" here does not mean that their conditions are fulfilled and the benefits are reaped. This would be ignoring the literal wording of the rules themselves. The "applied" in this situation is more like a sticker, icon, or banner being carried by the model.

Therefore, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule". Can you logically refute this?

Consider also that the IC is as much a part of the unit with at least one model containing a special rule when the unit benefits from Stubborn as it is in a Vanguard Veteran Squad it has joined.

Ok, so now, I begin to understand your side of the argument. I don't need to refute that

Charistoph wrote:
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule"

because it is irrelevent. Why?
We go back to what I was saying about formation bonuses and pre-game setup.
Straight from the rulebook, it says
"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."

What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist.
The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.

Charistoph wrote:
Here are the clauses of On Target:
"Units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads' from this Formation... on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. ...when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."

Here are the clauses of Stubborn:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, ... If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn,..."

In order for an IC to benefit from Stubborn, it must be in a unit with at least one model with this special rule AND is currently taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. If it is any other Leadership Test, the IC and the rest of the unit are unaffected by Stubborn. If the unit is affected by Fearless as well, we ignore Stubborn.

In order for an IC to benefit from On Target, it must be in a unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad that is in a Formation called Shadowstrike Kill Team AND is arriving from Deep Strike. For full benefit, the first model of the unit, IC or no, must be within 9" of a unit called a Scout Squad from the same Formation as the unit called Vanguard Veteran Squad in question.

So, in short, yes. It does pass the same checklist that Stubborn asks for, unless you are also saying you can only include an IC with a Detachment Special Rule when they are taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, too?

So now, everything I've said starts to come together.
The stance that "'Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" and "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." are both clauses that validate IC's makes sense IF AND ONLY IF 'On Target' was written into the IC's special rule. IT WAS NOT.

Lets look at the precedence set for UNIT SPECIAL RULES in the rulebook,
Monster Hunter
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls all failed..."
Move Through Cover
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls..."

Are we seeing a pattern? When the rulebook wants UNIT SPECIAL RULES to effect anyone else, including IC's, they make it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR. This is not just Stubborn!
Would IC's benefit from 'On Target' if it was originally part of the formation? Yes!
But by the time IC's join a unit in deployment, they do not retro-actively gain any of the formation special rules!
However, 'On Target' states that it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
So, it is still possible for IC's to benefit but you must check to see if it passes the IC and UNIT SPECIAL RULE checklist like normal!
For the checklist, you look at the precedent set by the rulebook in how they want IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES to interact, to see if 'On Target' applies to IC's.
This precedent has been set by multitudes of special rules including Stubborn/Monster Hunter/etc/etc/etc/etc and they even provided an example in Stubborn, specifically in the rule.
It does not pass the checklist.

Do we agree?

harkequin wrote:
I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.
He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.
Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"

Relentless is a model special rule. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. "On target" is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate listing right under Special Rules that talks about IC's and things like blind. It is literally right under it. It's called ICs and Ongoing Effects.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now.

harkequin wrote:
I want to point out the purpose of the "special rules section" for ICs, If my Chapter master joins a unit of Terminators, he cant fire his ordnance and move, despite the terminators having relentless.
He would join a relentless unit, but the unit's special rules (relentless) are not conferred unto him. When relentless is used the target of the rule is the model, so the effect (benefit) would still not effect the chapter master.
Any Rule that effects the unit (eg. Blind / SnP), still effects the IC as they are "part of the unit"


Relentless is a model special rule. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. "On target" is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate listing right under Special Rules that talks about IC's and things like blind. It is literally right under it. It's called ICs and Ongoing Effects.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now.

I am well aware that it is a model special rule, that was my point!

You missed it entirely.
THE MODEL IS NOT CONFERRED THE RULES OF THE UNIT.

Lets take an example, In say a decurion all the UNITS are given relentless. However if I add an IC from a CAD, they do not get relentless despite "being considered part of the unit"
because of the clause

" rules are not conferred"

That is why the clause exists, it prevents the IC from benefitting from MODEL RULES that the unit has,

However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"

harkequin wrote:
I am well aware that it is a model special rule, that was my point!

You missed it entirely.
THE MODEL IS NOT CONFERRED THE RULES OF THE UNIT.

Lets take an example, In say a decurion all the UNITS are given relentless. However if I add an IC from a CAD, they do not get relentless despite "being considered part of the unit"
because of the clause

" rules are not conferred"

That is why the clause exists, it prevents the IC from benefitting from MODEL RULES that the unit has,

However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"

You did not address anything else I wrote. But ok, I'll address yours.

Huge flaw in your thinking, yet again.
Once more, I read straight from the rulebook. There is literally no twisting of any rules or taking out of context, it is straight from the rulebook under ICs and Ongoing Effects:
"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."
Even in your interpretation, the unit gained the ability to charge via 'On Target' at army list creation. It is not shared to anyone else.
And even this is wrong, You are confusing EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES. Two wholely different topics.

Getting Blinded is an effect, and therefore doesn't care at all about IC's.

Stubborn, On Target, and Stealth are UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
UNIT SPECIAL RULES must abide by the checklist. Things that target the unit can be effects or UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
'On Target' is a formation bonus, which means it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.

For example, lets take the new Wulfen curse chart.
You have a unit of Blood Claws and you join Tigurius to them. You roll for the curse and get +3" movement. Is Tigurius effected? Yes.
Because it is an EFFECT. Not a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. And for all rules purposes, Tigurius is considered part of the unit except for, you guessed it, UNIT SPECIAL RULES. Same for blind.

harkequin wrote:


However, Stubborn/Blind/On Target/Stealth All target the unit, as such the IC benefits as the are "part of the unit"

Stubborn - a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule

Blind - all models in the unit

Stealth - a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule

On Target - units with the name of 'Vanguard Veteran Squads'


In the cases of Stubborn, Blind, and Stealth there is specific logic that would extend the benefit of the special rule to attached models.


In the case of On Target, the IC is merely joined to a unit with unit special rules, which is nothing more than the default state - an IC joined to a unit with special rules that affect the unit.

The IC Special Rules rule is very clear about what happens in the default case of an IC that is merely joined to a unit with unit special rules.




Without specific logical clauses that extend the benefit of the special rule to attached models (as in Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc.), the effect of the special rule does not confer to the IC.

Rasko wrote:
Ok, so now, I begin to understand your side of the argument. I don't need to refute that

At least someone is trying to understand instead of just throwing lies around.

Do keep in mind, that this is not my first rodeo on this subject and every single argument against my position in this thread has been used before. It is why I am so ready for answers to each and every one. Time to type them, however, is not as easily available.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this Special Rule" is "a unit containing at least one model with this special rule"

because it is irrelevent. Why?
We go back to what I was saying about formation bonuses and pre-game setup.
Straight from the rulebook, it says
"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."

What this means to us is that, formation bonuses are specical rules that effected units gain. When you write up your army list, you can pretend that the formation bonuses have been written into effected units. IC's join the unit in deployment. The formation special rules are not written into the IC for being part of the unit, it is already too late. And therefore, must abide by the IC and Special Rule checklist.
The order in which this happens is very important. The "On Target" special rule has already been written into the Vet squads, and it a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, by the time any IC's join the unit.

You are confusing things here, I think.

For one, when it comes to the relationship between ICs, units, and their Special Rules, no distinction is made between USRs, unit datasheet special rules, formation datasheet special rules, and detachment command benefits. There are other distinctions between them, of course, but when it comes to the IC and unit relationship, there is none listed.

For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.

On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).

So, the belief that On Target cannot affect an IC because the rule affects the unit before deployment carries no weight unless you make that same determination for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc., which then puts a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference.

This is why Mr. Shine asks the question, "How is the IC considered part of the unit for Stubborn, but not for On Target?" Both rules state they affect a target, and the target in question is a unit carrying this special rule, the IC is part of the unit. So why is one different just because it came from a detachment?

Rasko wrote:
So now, everything I've said starts to come together.
The stance that "'Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" and "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." are both clauses that validate IC's makes sense IF AND ONLY IF 'On Target' was written into the IC's special rule. IT WAS NOT.

So Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful would not work then, because they are not written in to the IC's special rule, but only Stubborn? This also puts that same rule you are using to a lie, because it ignores HOW Stubborn "specifies" it includes the IC with the unit. It also adds in rules that a specific phrase, AND ONLY THAT PHRASE, is the trigger for the relationship. It also ignores the second next set of rules regarding Ongoing Effects.

Keep in mind, Stubborn does not mention Independent Characters at all, nor states anything about models benefiting from this rule. It simply states a unit is affected and provides conditions for that effect to come in to play. Fleet is no different in this respect, aside from the fact that its conditions are steeper ('at least one model' versus 'all models in the unit').

Rasko wrote:
Are we seeing a pattern? When the rulebook wants UNIT SPECIAL RULES to effect anyone else, including IC's, they make it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR. This is not just Stubborn!
Would IC's benefit from 'On Target' if it was part of the formation? Yes!
But by the time IC's join a unit in deployment, they do not retro-actively gain any of the formation special rules!
However, 'On Target' states that it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE.
So, it is still possible for IC's to benefit but you must check to see if it passes the IC and UNIT SPECIAL RULE checklist like normal!
For the checklist, you look at the precedent set by the rulebook in how they want IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES to interact, to see if 'On Target' applies to IC's.
This precedent has been set by multitudes of special rules including Stubborn/Monster Hunter/etc/etc/etc/etc and they even provided an example in Stubborn.
It does not pass the checklist.

Do we agree?

No, we do not. Your checklist is flawed by a slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission, only some of which I have detailed in this post, but I have detailed earlier in this thread. This argument has been used several times throughout this thread.

"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." is a two-way condition. It is meant to allow an IC to affect a unit or for a unit to affect an IC. This is important for a UNIVERSAL special rule that could be carried by any model, be it a grunt Tactical Squad Marine or a Lord of War Chapter Master, but still be intended to affect all models in the unit.

This next part gets more in to intentions and logic than any actual rule written, but then including Independent Characters in with Stubborn takes a step in that direction anyway.

However, this is a redundant statement and clause for a rule that will be carried only by units so long as it exists. There are no ICs in the Shadowstrike Kill Team or the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. Many special rules unique to units also do not have ICs in the unit. Why add a clause that would allow an IC to give this benefit to a unit it has joined when no IC exists which can possess it (such as in On Target)? What if a rule is intended to not allow an IC to share it with the unit, but the unit would still share it with the IC (such as Codex Marines Demi-Company Objective Secured)?

Ponder this logic path and consider where it leads you.

All unit special rules target the unit for their effect. There is nothing specific about a unit special rule that targets the unit.

We know for certain that an IC that is joined to a unit does not get the units special rules just by being in the unit.

The IC Special Rules rule states clearly . . .



In order to have the benefit of the special rule confer to the IC, the IC Special Rules rule points out that the unit special rule must specify in the rule itself that models attached to the unit are to be included (as in Stubborn)

Stubborn uses this clause to logically incorporate attached models: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or "a unit containing one or more models with this special rule"


Here are all the unit special rules in the BRB that contain this phrase . . .

"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" (or the synonymous variant "a unit containing one or more models with this special rule")



Those rules all extend their benefit to the attached ICs by virtue of the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". They follow the template of Stubborn.


Here are three unit rules that follow a different template . . .

Fleet - "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Deep Strike - "all models in the unit must have the special rule"
Swarms - "a unit entirely composed of models with the special rule"

An IC (that does not have those special rules) that joins a unit with those special rules does not get the benefit of Fleet, Deep Strike, or Swarms and will effectively take away the ability of host unit to use Fleet, Deep Strike, or Swarms.

Here is another rule following yet another template

Jink "all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save"

An IC (that does not have Jink) that joins a unit with Jink does not get the benefit of Jink, but unlike Fleet or Deep Strike case, the IC not having Jink will not take away the ability of the other models to Jink.


################################################

Consider 2 rules

A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.

B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.


According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?


However, remember the IC Special Rules rule!



By default, unit rules do not extend their benefit to attached ICs. In order to extend their benefit to attached ICs the special rules must specify in the rule itself (as in stubborn) with a clause something along the lines of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"

And in fact nearly all of the unit special rules make this exact specification! And the special rules that do not make this exact specification do so because they do not want the IC to get the benefit of the unit rule.

Here is the list again of those that have made that specification.



The important thing to see is that only the (A) version of Night Vision will extend the benefit of Night Vision to the attached IC.
The (B) version of the Night Vision rule will not extend the benefit of Night Vision to the attached IC per the IC Special Rules rule.

And for the same reason, On Target will not extend the benefit of its unit special rules to the attached IC. The On Target rule does not make the requisite specification to override the IC Special Rules rule that keeps the On Target rule from extending its benefits to the IC.

It's very important for a unit special rule to include "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or something similar. Nearly all unit rules do this and it is important that they do so if they intend for the benefit of the rule to extend to attached ICs!

Charistoph wrote:
For one, when it comes to the relationship between ICs, units, and their Special Rules, no distinction is made between USRs, unit datasheet special rules, formation datasheet special rules, and detachment command benefits. There are other distinctions between them, of course, but when it comes to the IC and unit relationship, there is none listed.

I don't understand this at all. It doesn't make any distinctions because none are needed.
USRs > IC's get USRs if it is included in their datasheet.
Unit datasheet special rules > ICs do not inherently have unit datasheet special rules because they are an IC. If they join a unit, and there is a special rule effects that unit, refer to IC's and Special Rules section.
Formation datasheet special rules > If the IC is part of the formation, the IC would get the formation datasheet special rule.
Detachment command benefits > IC gets the command benefits if in that detachment.
What more distinctions need to be made from this point?

Charistoph wrote:
For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.

On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).

This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again,
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain."
So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!!
At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.

All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless!
Since the Special Rule is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it can also include IC's if they pass the checklist!
Unfortunately, it does not pass the checklist. Which brings us to what you said down here.

Charistoph wrote:
So, the belief that On Target cannot affect an IC because the rule affects the unit before deployment carries no weight unless you make that same determination for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc., which then puts a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference.

The same distinction IS MADE for Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc. When have I said otherwise?
An IC can not gain the benefits of Stubborn until he joins the unit. When he joins the unit and it triggers, it must pass the checklist. It passes.
How did that sequence right there, "put a lie to the exception provided in the restriction against special rule conference'?

Charistoph wrote:
This is why Mr. Shine asks the question, "How is the IC considered part of the unit for Stubborn, but not for On Target?" Both rules state they affect a target, and the target in question is a unit carrying this special rule, the IC is part of the unit. So why is one different just because it came from a detachment?

We can go through this again I suppose.
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = Includes IC's
"Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation" is a Special Rule and like all Special Rules, must pass a checklist.
What is the precedence set by the rulebook for multitudes of special rules including (Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc, etc, etc)?
The BRB wants a clause that includes IC's.
In the Rulebook, it says that for IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must be specified (like Stubborn).

Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale... Check
Tank Hunters: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls... Check
Slow and Purposeful: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot... Check
On Target:Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation... ?
Why does 'On Target' all of a sudden, get special snowflake treatment???

Charistoph wrote:
So Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful would not work then, because they are not written in to the IC's special rule, but only Stubborn? This also puts that same rule you are using to a lie, because it ignores HOW Stubborn "specifies" it includes the IC with the unit. It also adds in rules that a specific phrase, AND ONLY THAT PHRASE, is the trigger for the relationship. It also ignores the second next set of rules regarding Ongoing Effects.

Keep in mind, Stubborn does not mention Independent Characters at all, nor states anything about models benefiting from this rule. It simply states a unit is affected and provides conditions for that effect to come in to play. Fleet is no different in this respect, aside from the fact that its conditions are steeper ('at least one model' versus 'all models in the unit').

Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and purposeful DOES WORK. They pass the checklist "AS IN STUBBORN". There is a clause that explicitly lets it work!
There is no such clause for 'On Target'

Charistoph wrote:
No, we do not. Your checklist is flawed by a slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission, only some of which I have detailed in this post, but I have detailed earlier in this thread. This argument has been used several times throughout this thread.

"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." is a two-way condition. It is meant to allow an IC to affect a unit or for a unit to affect an IC. This is important for a UNIVERSAL special rule that could be carried by any model, be it a grunt Tactical Squad Marine or a Lord of War Chapter Master, but still be intended to affect all models in the unit.

This next part gets more in to intentions and logic than any actual rule written, but then including Independent Characters in with Stubborn takes a step in that direction anyway.

However, this is a redundant statement and clause for a rule that will be carried only by units so long as it exists. There are no ICs in the Shadowstrike Kill Team or the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. Many special rules unique to units also do not have ICs in the unit. Why add a clause that would allow an IC to give this benefit to a unit it has joined when no IC exists which can possess it (such as in On Target)? What if a rule is intended to not allow an IC to share it with the unit, but the unit would still share it with the IC (such as Codex Marines Demi-Company Objective Secured)?

Ponder this logic path and consider where it leads you.

Can the IC Charge the turn it arrives with the Vet squad? No, he doesn't have the rule.
-He is not a part of the formation > he doesn't have the rule.
-The formation gives the rule to the unit. Is he part of the unit? Yes.
-But Unit Special Rules don't confer unless they explicitly say so.
-Since it is a Unit Special Rule, refer to IC and Special Rule section for guidance. It provides an example if you need one.
It really is that simple. You are the one with a "slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission".

I think you need to do some more pondering. Take as long as you need.
Lets just extend each other the courtesy of admitting we are wrong, if we come to that realization. There is nothing wrong with it, instead of arguing for arguments sake.
I will extend you the same.

Rasko wrote:
I don't understand this at all. It doesn't make any distinctions because none are needed.
USRs > IC's get USRs if it is included in their datasheet.
Unit datasheet special rules > ICs do not inherently have unit datasheet special rules because they are an IC. If they join a unit, and there is a special rule effects that unit, refer to IC's and Special Rules section.
Formation datasheet special rules > If the IC is part of the formation, the IC would get the formation datasheet special rule.
Detachment command benefits > IC gets the command benefits if in that detachment.
What more distinctions need to be made from this point?

That is correct. They get the rules they possess from their detachment, or datasheet. That is the main distinction between them all, but for the relationship between ICs and units, source of the rule does not matter.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
For another, while formation special rules are given to units at army creation, they do not always immediately affect the units they are granted to. Why? Because the conditions these rules require have not yet been met. Stubborn does not affect a unit unless said unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test, and is as written in to the unit's special rules as much, if not more, than any special rules provided by a detachment.

On Target does not actually affect the unit until the unit arrives from Deep Strike. It simply cannot affect the unit before they Deep Strike or after the turn they Deep Strike any more than Stubborn can protect a unit while under attack from the Necron Nightbringer C'tan Shard's Gaze of Death (unit receives 3D6-Ld Wounds).

This is absoutely 100% WRONG. The Special Rules don't get written into the Vet squad at trigger! These things all happen in army building. We know this because we can consider formations to be a specific type of detachment. Straight from the BRB, once again,
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the... along with any special rules that those units gain."
So, 'On Target', gives all units in the 'detachment' the ability to charge from reserves. There is a trigger for the SPECIAL RULE to occur but the rule itself is not written into the Vet squad AT TRIGGER. It is done AT CREATION!!!!!
At army list creation, we give all battle-forged armies, their command benefits. We give all units that are under the detachment, the detachment special rules. We give all formations, their special rules. This is all at CREATION, NOT AT TRIGGER! It does not matter at all that it hasn't happened yet.

All units that have stubborn, have stubborn. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
All Vet squads that are part of the Strikeforce Formation, have the ability to charge from reserves. Whether it has happened or not is completely irrelevent.
The trigger is meaningless. Stubborn doesn't cease to exist until it is used. Slow and Purposeful doesn't cease to exist until it is used. And neither does ANY OTHER SPECIAL RULE.
The Vet squads have a rule that says that their unit can charge from reserves, whether it has happened or not. I will re-iterate, the trigger is completely meaningless!

Again, You are confusing things here. You are confusing gaining the rule itself and being affected by the rule as being the same thing. This is not true, nor could it actually work this way.

Triggers are meaningful, without them, we could execute those rules any time we choose. Remember what I said about Stubborn. Stubborn cannot benefit a unit in any other situation than when the unit is taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test. Any other Leadership Test or rule that references Leadership, Stubborn is completely, 100% useless.

And again, remember there is a rule regarding ongoing effects, which means they had to affect the unit AND the IC in the first place in order for the IC to still be affected when it leaves AND when not be affected if it joins afterward.

Rasko wrote:
We can go through this again I suppose.
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = Includes IC's
"Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation" is a Special Rule and like all Special Rules, must pass a checklist.
What is the precedence set by the rulebook for multitudes of special rules including (Stubborn, Stealth, Slow and Purposeful, etc, etc, etc)?
The BRB wants a clause that includes IC's.
In the Rulebook, it says that for IC's and UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must be specified (like Stubborn).

Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale... Check
Tank Hunters: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls... Check
Slow and Purposeful: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot... Check
On Target:Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation... ?
Why does 'On Target' all of a sudden, get special snowflake treatment???

I have explained this. On Target is not getting special snowflake treatment. You are taking one condition of two for the rule and giving it more authority than it has.

Where does that phrase specifically state "Independent Character" at all?

Rasko wrote:
Can the IC Charge the turn it arrives with the Vet squad? No, he doesn't have the rule.

Posession of the rule is not noted as a requirement in this rule. See Counter-Attack, Fleet, and Move Through Cover for such examples.

Rasko wrote:
-He is not a part of the formation > he doesn't have the rule.

Never said he was, but when joined to a unit that is, he does count as a model of the formation for the requirements of the rule, i.e. a model of a Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Rasko wrote:
-The formation gives the rule to the unit. Is he part of the unit? Yes.
-But Unit Special Rules don't confer unless they explicitly say so.
-Since it is a Unit Special Rule, refer to IC and Special Rule section for guidance. It provides an example if you need one.
It really is that simple. You are the one with a "slightly skewed perspective and an unsupportable preconception and requires ignoring numerous factors without explicit permission".

Stubborn only references "a unit" as receiving the benefit of the rule. "At least one model with this special rule" is a condition of use for the special rule, not permission to spread the rule through the unit. The only way an Independent Character can be referenced in Stubborn is if we consider it as part of "a unit".

At no point in the Special Rules section of the IC rule does it literally state that phrase as being the requirement. It is this unsupportable preconception to which I reference. You have a skewed perspective in that when a model receives the rule, it is immediately affected by it instead of when the rule actually tells you to apply it.

Rasko wrote:
I think you need to do some more pondering. Take as long as you need.
Lets just extend each other the courtesy of admitting we are wrong, if we come to that realization. There is nothing wrong with it, instead of arguing for arguments sake.
I will extend you the same.

I have pondered this numerous times, as I have stated. Whereas it seems that you did not ponder the last couple of questions I left you. Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind because they usually require a perspective that cannot be supported by the written rules because they are either completely made up or ignoring whole sections of rules.

I thought you were trying to learn, but it seems you are not and would rather rant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Consider 2 rules

A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.

B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.

According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?

Incorrect. The differences between A and B are that A is two way, while B is one way. If an IC has rule A, it will affect the unit. If the IC has B, it will not affect the unit, because only that model will have the rule, not the unit. However, If the unit has either A or B, then any attached ICs would benefit. But I've already been over this with you.

Charistoph wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Consider 2 rules

A) Night Vision - A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.

B) Night Vision - A unit with this special rule ignores the effects of Night Fighting.

According to Charistoph, (A) and (B) are functionally identical rules as far as the joined IC is concerned. They both would extend their benefit to attached ICs. Night Vision targets unit in both cases. And ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes, right Charistoph?

Incorrect. The differences between A and B are that A is two way, while B is one way. If an IC has rule A, it will affect the unit. If the IC has B, it will not affect the unit, because only that model will have the rule, not the unit. However, If the unit has either A or B, then any attached ICs would benefit. But I've already been over this with you.

I was only talking about the scenario from the perspective of the joined IC [as I indicate in red] so there was no need for correction as I was not incorrect.

The IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that unit special rules are not 'two-way sharing' or even 'one-way sharing' by default. By default there is 'no sharing'.



All unit special rules target the unit. So nothing is specific about a unit special rule that targets a unit. It is merely being a generic unspecified unit special rule.

Your argument is that being a unit rule (and therewith targeting a unit) is enough to override the IC Special Rules rule that prevents the unit special rule from extending to the IC.

However, the IC Special Rules rule has already made it clear that special rules that target units (ie unit rules) do not extend their influence to the attached IC. So a special rule is going to have to do something beyond being simply a unit rule (that already by definition targets a unit) to override the IC Special Rules rule.

Your argument is wrong because No Target does not fulfill the requirement of being specific and does not have something "specified in the rule itself (as in stubborn)" that regulates how the IC and the host unit influence each other with their special rules.

The clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is not some random clause. It is exactly functioning to specifically define how the IC and the host unit influence each other with their respective special rules. The clause is where the magic is happening.

In this case the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" changes it from the default "no-sharing" to a full "two-way sharing" of the influence of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.

The clause is very significant and that is why, as I have shown earlier, the clause is mandatorily featured in all unit special rules that want "two-way sharing".

#################################

Again, by default, there is no sharing of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.

Taking a unit rule (like the No Target unit special rule) and trying to override the IC Special Rules rule by saying that the unit is being targeted is not specific enough. All unit special rules target the unit and the IC Special Rules rule has set all unit special rules to not extend their effect to the IC unless specifically overridden (as in Stubborn).

It requires specific language along the lines of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" to open up the 'two-way' extending of the benefits of unit special rules between IC and the host unit.


The On Target rule simply does not have anything specific in it that would override the IC Special Rules rule which prevents unit special rules from extending to ICs and enforces "no sharing".

And similarly the (B) version of the Night Vision rule will not override the IC Special Rules rule which prevents unit special rules from extending to ICs.