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.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

I am not confusing anything. I have never said that gaining the rule is the only way to be affected by the rule. NOT ONCE.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

You and I both know I said that triggers were meaingless in the context of determining who has the special rule itself. Not who benefits from the special rule.
Obviously triggers are important when determining when abilities go off. Is that a joke? I said that the IC would gain the benefit of the Unit Special Rule, even though he does not have the rule itself.
However, he must pass the checklist because it is a Unit Special Rule.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

What are you even talking about here? We are talking about Unit Special Rules. I don't understand how ongoing effects come into play at all in this specific situation.

Charistoph wrote:
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?

So we are once again, back to
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." = "Vanguard Veteran squads from this formation"
The phrase doesn't specifically state "Independent Characters". It doesn't have to!
You completely ignore "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."
The BRB explicitly provided an EXAMPLE, that literally ALL THE OTHER UNIT SPECIAL RULES follow, in how they want a clause if a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, affects an IC.
This is an example that is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.

So I ask you again, why does "On Target" get special snowflake treatment?

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

Once again, I never denied that possession of the rule is a requirement. I was stating that it doesn't have it, for checklist purposes.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

Once again, I agree. He does count as a model in the unit. IE. a member of Vanguard Veteran Squad of Strikeforce Formation.
That doesn't mean he magically gets to bypass the checklist.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

It is here, where your own unsupported preconceptions come into play. The BRB sets a precedent that you can follow, by providing an example.
That this is a precedent is further cemented by the fact that all the other Unit Special Rules follow this example.
The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we do some mental hoops.
Also, don't take what people say out of context in an argument. It makes you look foolish. Context is everything.

Charistoph wrote:
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.

Who is ranting?

How about: time for a mod lock?

16 pages in, and shockingly enough one or the other side wont back down.

RAW: the "as in stubborn" is an example, and not an exhaustive list. Similarly Stubborn NEVER specifies "IC" - it only includes an IC by relying upon the "is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes" line so oft quoted. As such, when the rule affects the unit, it MUST affect the IC as well, otherwise we break this rule. At no point does it "confer", as much as Col likes to pretend confer means benefit.

To those against: Ork painboy. Affects warboss, yes or no? IF you are being consistent you MUST answer "NO"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW: the "as in stubborn" is an example, and not an exhaustive list. Similarly Stubborn NEVER specifies "IC" - it only includes an IC by relying upon the "is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes" line so oft quoted. As such, when the rule affects the unit, it MUST affect the IC as well, otherwise we break this rule. At no point does it "confer", as much as Col likes to pretend confer means benefit.

No one is denying that Unit Special Rules affect the IC. IT DOES.
And no one is denying that Stuborn specifically specifies "IC". IT DOESN't.
But it doesn't have to because it provides an example that is further cemented by the fact that every other special rule in the BRB follows that example.

Counter-attack: If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that...
Crusader: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...
Stubborn: When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes...
Fearless: Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special...
And ALL THE REST follow this example.

Why is "On Target" given special snowflake treatment in regards to IC's and Unit Special Rules?

The only way your line of thinking makes any sense is if we go through a mental hoop that says:
"Lets just ignore that all the Unit Special Rules in the BRB follow this example. Lets ignore the fact it specifically included '(as in the Stubborn special rule)' written into the rule itself. Since it doesn't explicitly state that I can't include 'a Vet Squad' as a clase, I'm going to include it anyway. Hurray! It works now since it doesn't say it doesn't."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
To those against: Ork painboy. Affects warboss, yes or no? IF you are being consistent you MUST answer "NO"

Why are those two things connected? Read the ability.
Dok's Tools state: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
I'll hold your hand.
Lets go through the checklist.
Is it a unit special rule? Yes.
Then the IC must go through the checklist.
Does it have a clause of some sort, as per the requirement in the BRB via the "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."? Yes.
That clause is "ALL MODELS IN HIS UNIT"

"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." =/= "All models in his unit have the Feel..."

ONE HAS A CLAUSE OF SOME SORT. ONE DOESN'T.

I'll hold your hand:

Is a unit of Vanguard Veterans composed of models? Yes
Do these models have the ability to charge? Yes
IS the IC a normal member of the unit for this purpose? Yes

Can the unit declare a charge? YES

Again: it is not an exhaustive list. It is not the only way the ICs inclusion can be specific. We know this to be a truism. A list of items conforming to the example does not make it any less of an example, nor elevate it to the special status that it is the ONLY way to include - as given by Doks tools. Neatly showing that special rules do not have to follow the example as if it were the only way

You neartly disproved your own argument. I hope you noticed that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'll hold your hand:

Is a unit of Vanguard Veterans composed of models? Yes
Do these models have the ability to charge? Yes
IS the IC a normal member of the unit for this purpose? Yes

Looking good so far.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can the unit declare a charge? YES

Wait. Why did it bypass "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..."?
Before charge, you must pass the checklist.
You ignore it, as if it doesn't even exist entirely.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: it is not an exhaustive list. It is not the only way the ICs inclusion can be specific. We know this to be a truism. A list of items conforming to the example does not make it any less of an example, nor elevate it to the special status that it is the ONLY way to include - as given by Doks tools. Neatly showing that special rules do not have to follow the example as if it were the only way

You neartly disproved your own argument. I hope you noticed that.

You're right, it isn't an exhaustive list. It ISN'T the only way the inclusion of IC's can be specified.
The requirement of "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." IS NOT "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...".
The requirement of "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." is that it needs a CLAUSE.

CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE =/= "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
How does this disprove anything I've said previously? How can you not agree that there is a fundemental difference between those 3 quotes.
Two of them EXPLICITLY have a clause that include models in his unit!

The only way your line of thinking makes sense is if we go through a mental hoop of
Unit that contains at least one model with this special rule = All models in his unit = A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule.
Or if we go through a mental hoop of
"A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." = "All Models in the Vanguard Veteran Squad with..."

Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.

Your requirement for a clause is made up, thats why.

And, the unit is composed of models. Each of them has permission to charge. How is that not equal to "at least one model"? In fact it is better than that - EVERY model has it!

We're at an impasse.

I'll follow the rules that states the unit can charge, and has specific allowance to do so, and the ICs presence does not alter that the UNIT is given the special rule "may charge" (paraphrased, obviously) as they are included as a normal member of the unit

Units declare charges The ICs presence does not alter that.

Unfortunately, THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. DON'T GO THROUGH THAT MENTAL HOOP.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL RULES UNLESS SPECIFIED.

and there is the fault!

Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.

the often mentioned clause :

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...

is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.

Stubborn and fearless are a completely different case. They basically state it can be used in the rule itself because of "if at least one...".

Anything 16 pages long obviously doesn't have a clear answer, so verify in advance with your TO for competitive games and come to a friendly consensus with your opponent if you're trying to play it with conferred benefits in friendly game.

Next!

FWIW Zealot, Stubborn etc. are probably worded the way they are because there are ICs with those rules that can grant them to a squad by joining it. The ...On Target rule, meanwhile, isn't present anywhere else.

Still, Stubborn doesn't actually explicitly call out ICs, it is only through the IC rules telling us the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes (all, not some) that we know ICs are affected by Stubborn. Similarly, an IC in a Vanguard Veteran squad with ...On Target or in an Assault Squad with First the Fire, Then the Blade may assault after deep striking, an IC in a unit from the GK formation may deep strike turn 1, and a non-KDK IC in a unit with Blood For the Blood God generates Blood Tithe points when killing a Character in a challenge. So much for "Special Snowflake", eh?

Rasko wrote:
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.

So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?

I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.

nekooni wrote:
So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?

I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.

Blind is an effect under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects". Do not confuse effects and Unit Special Rules. It is not a Unit Special Rule. We are talking about the Special Rules section.
Under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects", it talks about things like Blind and how it effects IC's and Units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, the unit is composed of models. Each of them has permission to charge. How is that not equal to "at least one model"? In fact it is better than that - EVERY model has it!

I'll follow the rules that states the unit can charge, and has specific allowance to do so, and the ICs presence does not alter that the UNIT is given the special rule "may charge" (paraphrased, obviously) as they are included as a normal member of the unit

Units declare charges The ICs presence does not alter that.

A clause is required because there is, universally, a clause in any Unit Special Rule. This precedent can be seen in any Unit Special Rule. Even your favorite, Dok's Tools, had a clause. Every Unit Special Rule in the BRB has a clause. It says "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),...". What kind of specification does "As in Stubborn" mean? Looking at Stubborn, we know it means a clause. We look at any Unit Special Rule in any codex and it has a clause. It is a constant, set in all rulebooks. Including Dok's Tools in the Ork Rulebook.
When I proved there was a clause in Dok's Tools, you randomly decided that there doesn't need to be a clause anymore.
And as a matter of fact, you then go to say that you decided to just forget about "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule),..." entirely because the IC is already a part of the unit, thus somehow bypassing the need to pass this checklist at the time the unit charges.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Stubborn is a given example how a IC get the possibility to benefit from a special rule that is present in a Unit.

the often mentioned clause :

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an...

is not exactly what it needs that a IC can benefit.
whats there is " A unit [...] rolls..." this is what makes Stubborn the example.
The very fact that Stubborn is aimed at the unit. This is no mental hoop. its written there.

I understand your point of view. It is back to...
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Like nosferatu1001 said, if this is your stance, we're at an impasse.
I will not agree that "a Vet Sqaud" is an explicitly stated clause, like those other 2 quotes. I don't see how they are similar at all.
Two of them are fundementally different than the other one.

Rasko wrote:

I understand your point of view. It is back to...
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE = "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Like nosferatu1001 said, if this is your stance, we're at an impasse.
I will not agree that "a Vet Sqaud" is an explicitly stated clause, like those other 2 quotes. I don't see how they are similar at all.
Two of them are fundementally different than the other one.

While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.

That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.

Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.

Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.

nos, may I make a suggestion. For future cases instead of an Ork Painboy, what about Objective Secured?

At least col_impact is being consistent, when he said that a non-ObSec IC attached to an ObSec unit won't control if it is the only model from the unit within 3" of an objective.

 _ghost_ wrote:
While two of them use the generic term Unit the last one calls out a very specific unit. then a Vet Squat is by the rules also a Unit.

That's the only difference. In fact you could change the term " a vet squat" with the term "unit" and the effect itself would not chance in case of the Vet Squat. I guess this is obvious. A joined IC does not change the fact that we still have a Vet Squat Unit.

Assault is a Unit action. As long as the unit is allowed to assault all models in that unit are part of the assault.
IC counts as member of the unit while joined. For all rule purposes. So also for Assaulting.

Yet you have not shown a line that actually prevents the unit from assaulting.

Yes, we go back to this again. I have never once disagreed that the IC is a part of the squad.
For all rules purposes, the IC is considered a part of the unit. Normally, if the unit can charge, the IC would be able to charge with it, since they are one.
The only time this is not the case is if the ability to charge originates from a UNIT SPECIAL RULE. Because, like all UNIT SPECIAL RULES, it must abide by 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."

Which brings us back to our impasse.
Does the Vanguard Vet Squad have the ability to charge from reserve via a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Is the IC considered a part of the the Vanguard Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Then it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist.
> Unlike some other people, I think we both agree on this so far.
And the impasse.
Your stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." passes this checklist.
My stance - "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.
I have already stated my position in that the precedent set in every single rulebook out there, proves that "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass this checklist.

 Happyjew wrote:
At least col_impact is being consistent, when he said that a non-ObSec IC attached to an ObSec unit won't control if it is the only model from the unit within 3" of an objective.

Can you read OBSEC please? How does OBSEC change a thing? OBSEC must also follow the rules. OBSEC is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, granted by a Command Benefit in army list creation.
Only troop choices in your army gain OBSEC. An IC is not a troop choice and therefore doesn't gain OBSEC. An IC can then join a unit with OBSEC and since OBSEC is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE, it is possible for the IC to benefit from the UNIT SPECIAL RULE (SINCE IT IS A PART OF THE UNIT) IF IT PASSES THE CHECKLIST.

You can never just conveniently ignore "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.". OBSEC does not have a clause that lets IC's benefit. Therefore, IC's do not gain OBSEC. Does this mean that the unit magically loses OBSEC? No. It simply just means that the, word-for-word, "unit’s special rules (OBSEC) are not conferred upon the Independent Character".

I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?

The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?

The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.

 _ghost_ wrote:
I think your checklist is flawed.
Why do you make a run for IC and special rules? The moment you passed the first two checks all is checked for that unit to make a assault. Does the Rule itself care what models are in the unit? no? so why you make a second run to check things that are unnessesary?

Why do I care about the checklist? Because it tells you...
"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."
Any time a UNIT SPECIAL RULE affects an IC, you have to look at that sentence to see if the special rule is conferred upon the IC! Why am I looking at it? Because it is a UNIT SPECIAL RULE and there is a IC in the UNIT! Therefore, fulfilling the two requirements of that sentence that force you to check before giving the ability to the IC!
How is it not necessary?

 _ghost_ wrote:
The IC rules part of the BRB is already covered with checking if the Vet Squat may assault and if the IC is part of said Squat. Keep in mind that the Special rule we talk doesn't call out models. its only the unit that is mentioned.

No. It hasn't been covered. That was what our impasse was about... I guess we'll go over this to the impasse again...
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Can the Vet Squad charge from reserve? Yes.
Is the IC part of the Vet Squad when determining if the IC can charge from reserve? Yes.
However, is that an ability from a Unit Special Rule?
If yes, it must pass the IC and Unit Special Rule checklist. Why must it pass the checklist?
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."
So, is the ability to charge from reserve a Unit Special Rule? Yes.
Then we have to see if it is specified in the special rule.

Aaaand, we arrive at our impasse... again...
My stance was
CLAUSE = "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
CLAUSE = "... as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have Feel No..."
CLAUSE =/= "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..."
Because of the precedent for Unit Special Rules and IC's already established in every single codex and the BRB by having a clause, "A Vanguard Veteran Squad with this special rule..." does not pass the checklist since it does not have a clause.

Your stance was that it did.
nosferatu1001 stance was, after realizing that Dok's Tools had a clause, that there is no need for the clause at all and we can use whatever-the-hell definition for "unless specified in the special rule" we bloody want. And just ignore the precedent set by every Unit Special Rule in all the books, for having a clause, because it doesn't explicitly state that you need a clause even though every other Unit Special Rule has a damn clause.

An impasse is any situation in which the parties involved can't, or won't, move forward or make any sort of progress. We both just re-iterated what we said to the impasse...

I will also note this for everyone else. The ITC and all related Tournements have ruled exactly the same as I have. While this doesn't exactly mean much, it definitely doesn't mean nothing either. It is the biggest tournement format in the world after all...
"Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc."
That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit

nekooni wrote:
So Blind doesn't affect ICs ? It's a Special Rule that doesn't have the exact same wording of Stubborn when it comes to its effect part, therefore the effect doesn't work?

I consider it an Ongoing Effect and due to that it will work - just like the effect from On Time.


Blind is an effect under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects". Do not confuse effects and Unit Special Rules. It is not a Unit Special Rule. We are talking about the Special Rules section.
Under "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects", it talks about things like Blind and how it effects IC's and Units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You are missing the point here.
It is entirely relevant.

1. Blind IS a special rule. Looking at it right now, under special rules in the BRB.

Blind has a trigger (hit by a blind weapon)
A target (the unit)
An effect (WS 1 BS 1)

We know that this affects ICs as we are told this.
It is PROOF that a special rule that affects the "unit" can affect attached ICs as well.

On Target has a trigger (Be a vanguard Vet squad)
A target (the unit)
An effect (May assault)

Why is this any different? They are both Special rules.

Stubborn has a trigger (Contain one model with the stubborn rule)
A target (the unit)
An effect (no leadership modifiers)

All these rules have the same target, The "unit" which includes ICs. Any restriction you apply to one you have to apply to the rest.

They are entirely relevant to the discussion, That's why they were brought up.

harkequin wrote:
You are missing the point here.
It is entirely relevant.

1. Blind IS a special rule. Looking at it right now, under special rules in the BRB.

Blind is a special rule. But it is not a Unit Special Unit! For effects, you look at the section for Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects.
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example."
That is the specific entry and it details how things like a Unit Special Rule and Effect are different.

All the rest of the things you wrote, is entirely meaningless because they are under different rulings sections.
Stubborn > Independent Characters and Special Rules
Blind > Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects

But yea. I'm done now. I think I've explained my side of the story in as much detail as possible. It is clear that neither side is willing to concede. Everyone is just repeating whatever they said, over and over again. That is fine. We can agree to disagree.

I'm going to follow ITC rulings on this one.
"Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc."
That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit

I'm done with this thread. You guys keep playing your game however you want. Just don't go to any tournaments and expect for that to work. Peace.

Rasko - Ob sec asks if a unit with Obsec is within 3"

Measure to the IC. Have you measured to the Unit. Yes or No?

Assume the IC is within 3" - is the unit within 3"? Yes or No?

Your checklist is never once invoked, as ObSec gives not two jots about the models. It is concerned with the unti. Same as On Target. It is concerned solely with the unit

It is INDISPUTABLE that the Unit has the On target rule
It is INDISPUTABLE that untis declare charges
THe VVS may declare the charge. This is proven.

Mod lock, this is gettting repetitious.

Blind is a special rule. But it is not a Unit Special Unit! For effects, you look at the section for Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects.
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example."
That is the specific entry and it details how things like a Unit Special Rule and Effect are different.

Stop moving the goalposts. It's irrelevant.

Blind is a special rule. By your logic it does not pass the special rule checklist. Yet we are told in the BRB that it does affect the IC.
Therefore your logic must be flawed.

All the rest of the things you wrote, is entirely meaningless because they are under different rulings sections.
Stubborn > Independent Characters and Special Rules
Blind > Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects

They are relevant because, Blind is a special rule, it has an ongoing effect CAUSED BY THE SPECIAL RULE.

It is still a special rule.
Your checklist is selective, you are finding reasons not to include blind in the checklist because it doesn't suit you.

I'm going to follow ITC rulings on this one.
"Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc."
That is straight from their updated FAQ (1-26-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit

Good for you!

I'm going to follow the ETC rulings on this one.
11. Rules and abilities that call out a specific unit, or rules that call out for a specific units faction ordetachment, like the -Rites Of Teleportation- from the Nemesis Strike Force calls for a Unit fromthat Detachment, -Objective Secured- which calls out a Troop Unit or -First The Fire, Then The Blade- from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force calls out an Assault Squad, work regardless if anIC has joined that unit or not, as the unit makeup does not change.

That is straight from their Updated FAQ (24-1-2016). Control-F and check it out yourself.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzus0DMobfGYLWJMbVY0ZS1nZUk/view

Just don't go to any tournement and expect for that to work. Peace.

No problem, just don't go to any tournament and be surprised when someone pulls a list out with it

Sorry guys, but i'm not going to be arguing with anyone anymore under any circumstances because I said I was done.

But it's a good thing we are on different continents then!
I don't need to worry about it at all being on NA. And you do, being on EU. Worked out perfectly, for us two anyway.
That two big organizations ruled it differently is quite telling in how ambiguous the rules are.

The simple thing to do is NA = ITC ruling. EU = ETC ruling. Since I'm never going to go to any ETC tournaments.

Rasko wrote:
Sorry guys, but i'm not going to be arguing with anyone anymore under any circumstances because I said I was done.

But it's a good thing we are on different continents then!
I don't need to worry about it at all being on NA. And you do, being on EU. Worked out perfectly, for us two anyway.

Pretty much. Respective tournament circuits seem to agree with us

So based on the people arguing with Rasko, I will henceforth using a group of 10 Deathmarks with a Destroy Lord attached, thus granting them Preferred Enemy. Now I can Deep Strike in on your turn, fire 20 shots, wounding on 2+ and re-rolling! Goodbye to whatever you just Deep Struck onto the board!

EnTyme pls write down the rules you reffer. then right now this looks like a pure troll post.

 EnTyme wrote:
So based on the people arguing with Rasko, I will henceforth using a group of 10 Deathmarks with a Destroy Lord attached, thus granting them Preferred Enemy. Now I can Deep Strike in on your turn, fire 20 shots, wounding on 2+ and re-rolling! Goodbye to whatever you just Deep Struck onto the board!

Are you being sarcastic?
That's a legitimate tactic. In fact the competitive DnD combo adds in the gauntlet of the conflagrator, S7 AP2 template , re-rolling ones interception is necrons go-to insurance against wraithguard deepstriking !

I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.

But that's not an exploit. That's actually how the rule works and is a commonly accepted tactic.

Zimko wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm referring to Ethereal Interception which allows a unit of Deathmarks to Deep Strike during an opponent's movement phase provided that the opponent has Deep Struck at least one unit on the same phase. At the end of that movement phase, the Deathmarks may fire at any enemy unit that entered via Deep Strike during the same phase. The other Deathmark SR is Hunter from Hyperphase which allows the Deathmarks to wound on 2+ on the turn in which they Deep Strike. The idea is that by adding a Destroyer Lord (who has Deep Strike by virtue of being Jetpack Infantry), they would be allowed to reroll misses by way of Preferred Enemy. What I am trying to point out is that according to the counter-argument, the Destroyer Lord would be able to benefit from Ethereal Interception even though it is a Special Rule that does not state it applies to models without the special rule. I'm showing how easy it is to exploit this interpretation of the IC rules.

But that's not an exploit. That's actually how the rule works and is a commonly accepted tactic.

Yeah, this has been around for a while. Certainly since the Craftworlds Eldar codex dropped.

I just want to add if you look at the rules, they have clear wording.
Ethereal interception -> the unit can intercept and fire.
Hunters from Hyperspace -> Deathmark models in the unit wound on 2+.

Destroyer lord does not get to wound on 2+ with his staff of light, but is allowed to fire it.

This Tactic is also used (against drop pods) to allow a Turn 1 charge with the destroyer lord.
Enemy goes first, drop pod assaults, Deathmarks and D-lord deepstrike in on opponent turn.
On your turn the destroyer lord and deathmarks charge.

But the Destroyer Lord doesn't get Ethereal Interception. That rule only applies to the Deathmark unit. It can DS with them during YOUR turn, but not using Ethereal Interception.