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.

That's been refuted multiple times already.

Units charge.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.

harkequin wrote:

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge

On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge

On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.

cool.

It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.

Can you refute this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Vanguard Veteran Squad is the unit. If you disagree you are missing a fundemental part of the game, detailed on page 2 under "General Principles :UNITS"

It says the Unit may charge.
It does not say "Vanguard Veterans models in the unit"

The rule says the Unit may charge,
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit may charge.

Can you refute this?

harkequin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge

On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.

cool.

It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.

Can you refute this?

That's been refuted multiple times already.

Units charge.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. While an unit can be made of models from only one army list entry, it can also be made from models from more than one army list entry (Captain is 1 army list entry, Vanguard Veteran squad is a separate army list entry) Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.


I

harkequin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Can you show me on the vanguard veteran squad army list entry where the IC profile is, or its special rules?

Because it has been shown to you that in the BRB, right after the section you are quoting and continue to quote that there are MORE rules to it than what you are saying and differentiate the unit and IC when they are JOINED in terms of special rules.

on target does not say the unit may do anything. Unless you can quote where it says "unit" somewhere in on target, you would be best to stop bringing it up as it is simply not true.

Now you are just being facetious.
On target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation"
Vanguard Veteran squad is the unit. The IC is considered part of the unit -> the IC is considered part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad.

Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge

On Target is a unit rule. That was settled pages ago.

cool.

It says Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge
IC is part of Vanguard Veteran Squad.
Vanguard Veteran Squad may charge.

Can you refute this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Vanguard Veteran Squad is the unit. If you disagree you are missing a fundemental part of the game, detailed on page 2 under "General Principles :UNITS"

It says the Unit may charge.
It does not say "Vanguard Veterans models in the unit"

The rule says the Unit may charge,
The IC is part of the unit.
The unit may charge.

Can you refute this?

The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule. The unit would have to be able to charge with the attached IC not benefitting from the On Target rule.

The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule.

Quote to back this up? this is no-where in the book.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do

You disprove yourself.

Units charge. ALEs don't. So how does the quote saying "Vanguard Veteran Squads may charge" refer to an ALE (which can't move charge or shoot) over a unit (which can charge) ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In order to not break the game, it refers to a unit.

The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit
The unit may charge.

Neither of you has shown any rule support for why the above is untrue.

harkequin wrote:

The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule.

Quote to back this up? this is no-where in the book.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do

You disprove yourself.

Units charge. ALEs don't. So how does the quote saying "Vanguard Veteran Squads may charge" refer to an ALE (which can't move charge or shoot) over a unit (which can charge) ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In order to not break the game, it refers to a unit.

The unit may charge.
The IC is part of the unit
The unit may charge.

Neither of you has shown any rule support for why the above is untrue.

Sure I have.


The IC does not benefit from the On Target special rule, per the IC Special Rules rule. The unit would have to be able to charge with the attached IC not benefitting from the On Target rule.

vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.

Rules that models have which have permission to affect the unit state that they do so specifically. as per stubborn, stealth, shrouded, etc, etc.

so the models from the vanguard veteran squad with the on target rule have permission to charge, however nothing grants permission to the unit by using the words "unit" anywhere within on target. Which is what is specifically required by the rules, to grant permission to do so. Which Col and others have quoted many times. So specifically the rule does not benefit the unit, and grants no permission to the unit to do anything nor an attached IC.

people seem to think that quote means something else based on using one of the OED definition of confer. But then never say what that rule then means- a poor argument on their part as not only does it not grant permission to benefit, but it only tries to create confusion about what a rule means out of context of the actual rule.

The above rule specifically calls out stubborn, and specifically states it has wording that allows it to confer to an IC.

Looking at stubborn it does not use the word confer at all, but rather benefits the unit if at least one model has it.

therefore the above shows that confer= the unit benefits if one model has the rule which must be specified in the rule itself as per stubborn, as per the example of how special rules possessed by models in an unit that an IC has joined does not have interact with the IC and the Unit it joined. Note how the above rule also differentiates the IC and the Unit when they are joined.

as 'on target' lacks any of this, it does not have any rules permission for the IC to benefit in any way from the rule.

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.

actually it does.

No, it does not. Just because you are in possession of something, does not mean everyone gets it.

"If your group has at least one person with a bannana, your group may have lunch." does not translate to "Everyone in the group gets a bannana". It just means your group gets to have lunch. 5 people could have a bannana, and the loner who joined the group just for that shift may not have a bannana, but he still gets lunch. If another rule is "Group 5 goes to lunch at 12:45pm", it doesn't care if the shift loner is only there for the day, he goes to lunch, too. Do you understand this?

blaktoof wrote:The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.

So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.

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

.

We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.

OR, we could go by what is actually written and then note that the reason it benefits the IC is because it is part of the unit when the unit is affected by the Special Rule and so is incorporated in to the effect instead of relying on one phrase that actually does not mean anything you said it does nor is referenced as being the specific conditional phrase any more than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").

And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.

The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.

Spoiler:

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

They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.

No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.

blaktoof wrote:That's been refuted multiple times already.

Units charge.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.

And this has been refuted before, since you cannot follow a datasheet legend.

I don't need to show the IC profile on the datasheet. That is what "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is for.

A rule that uses a unit name is not referring to an army list entry or a datasheet, it is referring to an entity that can perform those actions or fulfill those requirements and has a name received from that datasheet. If that entity is a unit and only a unit, it is the same as saying "a unit with this name".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.

Yes, the title of the section "Unit Name" obviously isn't talking about naming a unit, it is only talking about an entry or datasheet. [/sarcasm]

Oh.. wait.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").

And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.

The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.

Spoiler:

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

They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.

No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.

Edited by Moderator - Rule Number One is Be Polite

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit."

It does not say . . .

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the individual models in the unit."

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the weapons on the models of the unit."


The IC Special Rules rule refers to the special rules of the unit and is dealing with the case of an IC joining a unit with special rules ascribed to the unit.

And in that case, the IC Special Rules rule declares that there is no sharing of special rules by default except for those rules that include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
"unless specified in the rule itself.."

The special rule of Stubborn isn't the OED definition of confer, its the OED of benefit.

"if at least one model in the unit has this rule than it may do x"- does not confer or grant the rule to the other models, but benefits them.

No, Stubborn does not mean benefit. "If I have at least one banana" does not mean you all get a banana.

actually it does.

No, it does not. Just because you are in possession of something, does not mean everyone gets it.

"If your group has at least one person with a bannana, your group may have lunch." does not translate to "Everyone in the group gets a bannana". It just means your group gets to have lunch. 5 people could have a bannana, and the loner who joined the group just for that shift may not have a bannana, but he still gets lunch. If another rule is "Group 5 goes to lunch at 12:45pm", it doesn't care if the shift loner is only there for the day, he goes to lunch, too. Do you understand this?

blaktoof wrote:The entire unit is benefiting from stubborn despite not being granted the rule when one model has the rule stubborn. Obviously the other models are not granted stubborn as there is no permission for that to happen, and obviously they benefit from it despite not having it.

So therefore confer cannot mean grant in this case of its usage.

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

.

We are given the example of stubborn, which specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it. Obviously the special rule isnt granted to the unit. That is not stated, or given permission, anywhere in the rule. However obviously the unit is benefiting from the rule. Here in the above we are specifically told that stubborn specifically has in its rule that the IC is conferred the rule. However the way stubborn is worded is the OED definition of benefit, which is not the same as grant. So obviously the writers are allowing the IC to benefit from stubborn without being granted the rule. Therefore to say that confer means anything other than benefit is not what the the authors have written into the rules.

OR, we could go by what is actually written and then note that the reason it benefits the IC is because it is part of the unit when the unit is affected by the Special Rule and so is incorporated in to the effect instead of relying on one phrase that actually does not mean anything you said it does nor is referenced as being the specific conditional phrase any more than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Yes, WE are talking about special rules of the type "a unit...", not the rulebook. Note the difference. And yes, we are talking about a model's special rules (specifically the one indicated by "Independent Character").

And yes, units have rules that do not address a unit. See Deathmark's Hunters From Hyperspace for a sample.

The special rules of an IC are unit special rules. Same with Deathmarks, as per ALE.

Spoiler:

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

They are never named as such by the rulebook. Those are names WE give them.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a noun being used as and adjective and a possessive noun. i.e. unit special rules vs unit's special rules. Hunters From Hyperspace could be classified as a unit special rule and a unit's special rule. Ever-Living that a Deathmark may carry as part of a Decurion is a Command Benefit, so would be a unit's special rule and not a unit special rule. The IC's special rules section is talking about the unit's special rules and the independent character's special rules.

No distinction is made on how either entity received the special rule in this section or its source.

blaktoof wrote:That's been refuted multiple times already.

Units charge.

Army list entries do not always equal Units. Or rather army list entries do not charge, units do.

The unit isn't allowed to charge , only some of the models in it which came from a specific army list entry in a specific detachment are- and their allowance to do so through a special rule has no wording that allows the unit to do so.

Unless you can show the IC profile on the vanguard veteran squad then the vanguard veteran squad is not the same as saying unit for the purposes of the rules of the game.

And this has been refuted before, since you cannot follow a datasheet legend.

I don't need to show the IC profile on the datasheet. That is what "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is for.

A rule that uses a unit name is not referring to an army list entry or a datasheet, it is referring to an entity that can perform those actions or fulfill those requirements and has a name received from that datasheet. If that entity is a unit and only a unit, it is the same as saying "a unit with this name".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
vanguard veteran squad is the name of an ALE, and the on target rule does not reference the 'unit' anywhere within it.

Yes, the title of the section "Unit Name" obviously isn't talking about naming a unit, it is only talking about an entry or datasheet. [/sarcasm]

Oh.. wait.

multiple statements here are indicative that you have a very poor grasp on the rules of the game in regards to how units work, as well as special rules.

You accept the IC does not come from the datasheet of a different unit when joined to it, however refuse to accept this also means that an IC cannot be a model from a vanguard veteran squad when joined to such in an unit.

Your entire statement about bananas has nothing to do with anything being disussed, it is if you were saying the "Capitol of France is Paris, therefore I am correct" No one on either side has claimed that the IC actually gains or is granted the special rule of the unit it may be joined to-however you and others have insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting (despite the rules for stubborn which is used as a specific example for confer here not using that context at all) that this section actually refers to the IC being granted the rule- which is exactly the opposite if what you are arguing against. Which again has not been stated by anyone, and is certainly not implied by anyone who understands the IC does not benefit from 'on target'

You also are specifically confusing special rules with ongoing effects, the special rule 'on target' is not and does not create an ongoing effect- and no rules indicate it does or can.

additionally it was not refuted that ' Unit Name= Unit' In fact it was shown that unit name does not equal unit by default. If you join a techmarine to marneus calgar, is the techmarine marneus calgar? If I join an autarch to Eldrad, is the autarch now Eldrad? No. Because when an IC joins another unit it does not become a member of that units datasheet nor count as being from that units datasheet, nor count as being of that units name. Nothing in the rules indicates that it does. In fact the rules for ICs and joining units with special rules DIFFERNTIATES the IC and the Unit when they are joined for determing special rules and what gets to affect the other. Further disproving your entire statement in this regards. So yes, the unit name does not equal unit for rules terms, and yes an IC joined to an Unit is still separate when you figure out its special rules as has been quoted many times.

and no ' on target' meets none of the specified requirements to benefit an attached IC anywhere within any of the rules for 40k.

Haha. I'm glad I gave up arguing this. We are 18 pages long people...

Given the fact that the ITC and ETC have ruled differently, just shows that both sides have some sort of traction.

The next time someone asks a question like this, just tell them the truth.
The ITC has ruled against this working.
The ETC has ruled for this working.

Both sides can quote the BRB and show how they think their interpretation of the rules is correct. So much so, that two tournament circuits have even ruled in opposite directions. But there is no point because of these facts:
-My FLGS likes to use ITC rules.
-Any tournament I will ever go to uses ITC rules.
-Any home games will use ITC rules.
Since any game I will ever play, competitive or casual, will use ITC rules, my personal interpretation of the rules matter very little. The same goes for EU with the ETC.

So now, whenever anyone has a question like this, my go-to answer will literally just be
ITC = Against
ETC = For
Since there is no point trying to rules-lawyer this one way or the other, just leave personal opinion out of it completely.
STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT IT "WORKS" or "DOESN'T WORK" as a BLANKET STATEMENT.
What is the point of telling an NA guy that it works and when he goes to play, IT DOESN'T GAK'ING WORK?!. Or an EU guy that it doesn't work and when he goes to play, IT GAK'ING WORKS?!
Two tournament organizations have ruled DIFFERENTLY! There is no resolution here.

If you are in NA, follow ITC rulings since EU rulings matter gak-all.
If you are in EU, follow ETC rulings since NA rulings matter gak-all.
If you think your region ruling is wrong, play your damn basement games however the bloody hell you want, and don't go to any tournaments or FLGS that use tournament rules then.

col_impact wrote:"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit."

It does not say . . .

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the individual models in the unit."

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the weapons on the models of the unit."

Which is not what I was saying, intimating, or responding to, so why are you heading down that avenue of thought?

col_impact wrote:The IC Special Rules rule refers to the special rules of the unit and is dealing with the case of an IC joining a unit with special rules ascribed to the unit.

And in that case, the IC Special Rules rule declares that there is no sharing of special rules by default except for those rules that include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"

Actually it is dealing with both. The post you quoted earlier that we were referencing was not this sentence you are quoting now. Go back up and look at it.

This is the sentence I am addressing:

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

This sentence never addresses "unit special rules", it addresses "unit's special rules" along with the "Independent Character's special rules". The phrase "unit special rules" is never actually used in the rulebook.

Both the Independent Character and the unit it joins both carry Special Rules with them. These rules are not granted to the other when the Independent Character joins the unit. That's all the restrictions this sentence is talking about. It references that there are exceptions to this by the same method that Stubborn uses. Stubborn never once states a rule being crossed over, only that a unit benefits when its conditions are met.

That's it. Not that complicated.

blaktoof wrote:multiple statements here are indicative that you have a very poor grasp on the rules of the game in regards to how units work, as well as special rules.

This ought to be rich when you think that a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" cannot be a unit, but only a datasheet or Army List Entry.

blaktoof wrote:You accept the IC does not come from the datasheet of a different unit when joined to it, however refuse to accept this also means that an IC cannot be a model from a vanguard veteran squad when joined to such in an unit.

"From a vanguard veteran squad"? Correct, ICs are not nor cannot be a model from a Vanguard Veteran Squad. Nor have I ever intimated as such. Which demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue as to what I have been saying if you think that has been part of my argument.

However, there is still the simple fact that when an IC joins a unit, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." He is not being counted as coming from the unit, but when a rule addresses the unit the IC has joined, it is including the IC model in all actions indicated as being from or happening to the unit.

Do you understand this concept?

blaktoof wrote:Your entire statement about bananas has nothing to do with anything being discussed, it is if you were saying the "Capitol of France is Paris, therefore I am correct" No one on either side has claimed that the IC actually gains or is granted the special rule of the unit it may be joined to-however you and others have insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting (despite the rules for stubborn which is used as a specific example for confer here not using that context at all) that this section actually refers to the IC being granted the rule- which is exactly the opposite if what you are arguing against. Which again has not been stated by anyone, and is certainly not implied by anyone who understands the IC does not benefit from 'on target'

My statement about bananas was a study of the language being used in Stubborn and in On Time. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that you did not recognize this.

We have not " insinuated that confer actually is used in the context of granting", we have stated it out right, since the other definition makes even less sense.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not discussed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not discussed upon the unit."

This doesn't make sense, and this version:
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules do not have their opinions exchanged upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules do not have their opinions exchanged upon the unit." makes even less sense.

Therefore, only the interpretation of, "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted to the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted to the unit." is the only accurate literal interpretation that can be reached.

In addition, nothing in the Stubborn special rule actually states any other models get its rules, much less Independent Characters. How does Stubborn specifically state that anything confers? It only addresses a unit receiving any benefit.

How then can an IC be perceived as gaining any benefit? Most simply, we remember that the IC is considered part of the unit when Stubborn recognizes its conditions are met and the effect that Stubborn applies includes the IC as being part of the unit.

blaktoof wrote:You also are specifically confusing special rules with ongoing effects, the special rule 'on target' is not and does not create an ongoing effect- and no rules indicate it does or can.

I am not. You simply do not understand what I'm saying. You are confusing the cause with the effect. Special Rules provide effects, benefits, and deficits.

On Target does not apply if the Vanguard Veteran Squad starts on the field of deployment. Its conditions only apply if the unit Deep Strikes. This effect is limited to only a turn the unit arrives from Deep Strikes.

blaktoof wrote:additionally it was not refuted that ' Unit Name= Unit' In fact it was shown that unit name does not equal unit by default. If you join a techmarine to marneus calgar, is the techmarine marneus calgar? If I join an autarch to Eldrad, is the autarch now Eldrad? No. Because when an IC joins another unit it does not become a member of that units datasheet nor count as being from that units datasheet, nor count as being of that units name. Nothing in the rules indicates that it does. In fact the rules for ICs and joining units with special rules DIFFERNTIATES the IC and the Unit when they are joined for determing special rules and what gets to affect the other. Further disproving your entire statement in this regards. So yes, the unit name does not equal unit for rules terms, and yes an IC joined to an Unit is still separate when you figure out its special rules as has been quoted many times.

It was refuted. Only a few, such as yourself, seem to think "unit name" does not reference a name of a unit. If "unit name" is not referencing a unit, what is it representing? Please quote the appropriate rule to support your answer, and this is an open book test.

Also you cannot seem to wrap your mind around the simple fact that both a unit and a model can both carry the same name. A Techmarine IC that joins Marneus Calgar becomes a Techmarine model with the Marneus Calgar model both operating as part of the Marneus Calgar unit. Just as a Chaplain which starts as a Chaplain model in a Chaplain unit (look it up, that's how the datasheet describes it) and joins a Vanguard Veteran Squad operates as a Chaplain model in a Vanguard Veteran Squad. The rules never suggest, much less state, any other operation.

And you think I have difficulties with the rules and how units work? Wow.

blaktoof wrote:and no ' on target' meets none of the specified requirements to benefit an attached IC anywhere within any of the rules for 40k.

It has no more, and no less, than Stubborn provides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rasko wrote:
If you are in NA, follow ITC rulings since EU rulings matter gak-all.
If you are in EU, follow ETC rulings since NA rulings matter gak-all.
If you think your region ruling is wrong, play your damn basement games however the bloody hell you want, and don't go to any tournaments or FLGS that use tournament rules then.

[sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:

And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...

Charistoph wrote:
[sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:

And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...

Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
[sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:

And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...

Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.

Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.

Charistoph wrote:
Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.

You do realise that the exact same thing will be said about you from the other side of the argument.
That is why this thread is 18 pages long. Neither side has accomplished a thing.

That is why I proposed we stop saying blanket statements like "it works" or "doesn't work", when it is pretty much region dependent.
Ok, so say you successfully convinced an NA guy that it works. He goes to a tournament and mid-game, they inevitably rule that it doesn't work. Who, exactly, wins in this scenario? Your ego?
Would you not rather tell the NA guy that both sides of the argument has not come to a consensus, but that his region has ruled that it doesn't work?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather help any future reader out (if that really is your intention), and tell him the latter.

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.

You do realise that the exact same thing will be said about you from the other side of the argument.
That is why this thread is 18 pages long. Neither side has accomplished a thing.

That is why I proposed we stop saying blanket statements like "it works" or "doesn't work", when it is pretty much region dependent.
Ok, so say you successfully convinced an NA guy that it works. He goes to a tournament and mid-game, they inevitably rule that it doesn't work. Who, exactly, wins in this scenario? Your ego?
Would you not rather tell the NA guy that both sides of the argument has not come to a consensus, but that his region has ruled that it doesn't work?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather help any future reader out (if that really is your intention), and tell him the latter.

If the guy is running in to a tournament, I hope he has read the tournament's rules. Not my fault if he hasn't. Not everyone in NA runs ITC just as not everyone in Europe runs ETC.

If I run in to a guy that plays by those rules, but neglects to tell me that, it is easy to point out to him that he is trying to apply House Rules after we started the game. To which point, we can either discuss or roll. Mostly it depends on how the guy is otherwise being at that point.

We could even roll now, if you want. I got a 6, what did you get? See the pointless of relying on the roll for an online discussion?

Charistoph wrote:
If the guy is running in to a tournament, I hope he has read the tournament's rules. Not my fault if he hasn't. Not everyone in NA runs ITC just as not everyone in Europe runs ETC.

If I run in to a guy that plays by those rules, but neglects to tell me that, it is easy to point out to him that he is trying to apply House Rules after we started the game. To which point, we can either discuss or roll. Mostly it depends on how the guy is otherwise being at that point.

We could even roll now, if you want. I got a 6, what did you get? See the pointless of relying on the roll for an online discussion?

Hahaha. Where have I ever said that relying on the roll is the right way to go?
I have never said that every single minute tournament in NA uses ITC rules or that every single minute tournament in EU uses ETC rules.
I don't understand where you are getting these delusional ideas...

I simply stated that we should point out to future readers that ITC ruled for and ETC ruled against, since neither side can come to a proper consensus.
I said there are valid points to both sides in this argument. It is an ambiguous rule, which is further acknowledged by the fact that two of the biggest tournament organizations made opposite ruling.

I said that in the future, we should point this out to readers instead of arguing both sides over and over again. This is because, once again, both sides have some sort of traction and it is not possible to come to a consensus. If it was possible, it would have happened in 18 pages. Neither side will ever back down because neither side is completely wrong, as this rule can be interpreted in one way or the other.

But feth it, because?... I don't understand what you hope to accompllish by keep getting on this merry go round.
I said that if you live in NA, it is a good idea to just go into things with the standard that it doesn't work and adjust accordingly from there. Since the ITC is the biggest NA tournament organization. The opposite goes for EU.
In your basement games, play however you want. That is all.
You are not right. You are not wrong. Deal with it. Just as much as they are not right. And they are not wrong.

Rasko wrote:
Hahaha. Where have I ever said that relying on the roll is the right way to go?

I never said you did. I was simply pointing out that in the rulebook, these are handled by a roll off, but that the roll off isn't helpful here.

Rasko wrote:
I have never said that every single minute tournament in NA uses ITC rules or that every single minute tournament in EU uses ETC rules.
I don't understand where you are getting these delusional ideas...

It is called "covering the bases" and "explaining my answer". If someone goes up to a tournament expecting ETC rules, and finds out mid-way through the game that it is ITC rules, that is their problem. No different than in the scenario you just covered.

Rasko wrote:
I simply stated that we should point out to future readers that ITC ruled for and ETC ruled against, since neither side can come to a proper consensus.
I said there are valid points to both sides in this argument. It is an ambiguous rule, which is further acknowledged by the fact that two of the biggest tournament organizations made opposite ruling.

And they may change the ruling at some future point. Coming from such diverse environs and NOT the forum for those tournament circuits, extolling any TC ruling can be rather pointless. What do the Australians use, for example? It is not any different than saying, "At my LGS we do this".

Rasko wrote:
You are not right. You are not wrong. Deal with it. Just as much as they are not right. And they are not wrong.

I am right, though. They are wrong. Especially Blacktoof and col_impact. One works from either some strange rulebook he will not quote from and the other lies and makes up cases, takes your arguments, turns them around, and try to use them against you.

Charistoph wrote:

Rasko wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
[sarcasm]Yes because TC's always make decisions based only on how the rules are supposed to work and NEVER make decisions based on a perception of "balance" or "fair play".[/sarcasm] :rollseyes:

And people tell me that the tournament scene has no influence on the gaming community...

Like I said man, you play your little basement game however you want.
You will neither convince anyone that you are right or help anyone in any way to find consensus here.
That is a fact I've already accepted. Perhaps once you ponder some more, you will come to the same conclusion.

Oh, I've already figured that out. But I feel a little sense of responsibility to any future readers that may happen upon the thread to point out the egregious errors that people keep spouting as gospel, yet cannot provide any actual documentation to support their statements.

Surely you realise that any future readers of thread will have given up by around page 4

Charistoph wrote:
I love merry-go-rounds

And back to the merry-go-round we go.

WeeeeEEEEEEeeeEEEEEeeEEEEeee~~~~~~

I gave both sides an elegant way to end the argument without having to admit defeat. But you just had to start this never-ending train again.
I'm beginning to think you have some kind of complex.

Charistoph wrote:

I am right, though. They are wrong. Especially Blacktoof and col_impact. One works from either some strange rulebook he will not quote from and the other lies and makes up cases, takes your arguments, turns them around, and try to use them against you.

It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.

I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument, now would we?

So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument and keep your baseless accusations politely to yourself and do your part to help maintain a standard of polite discourse in YMDC.

I have merely pointed out that as of yet you have wholly failed to provide for On Target something that satisfies the requisites laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and that you cannot ignore plainly stated rules (unless you want to go the route of a house rule).

The IC Special Rules rule indicates quite clearly that the special rules of the IC do not extend to the joined unit and the special rules of the unit do not extend to the joined IC.



So the special rules of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule >" or some such equivalent) do not automatically extend their benefit to the attached ICs.

In order for a special rule of the unit to extend to the IC it must meet the requirement of having something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)"

Stubborn includes a clause that logically extends the special rule to attached models (which would include the IC).

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

This clause is not some random clause but a clause that ALL of the special rules that extend to attached ICs include. In fact, it is by virtue of this clause that the effects of the special rule of the unit are extended to the IC. Here is a listing of the special rules of the unit that follow Stubborn's easily identifiable pattern (ie. specifically including the clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" or an exact logical synonym).



The clause is not some random verbiage. It is exactly what logically allows the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC.

The only special rules of the unit that break from the Stubborn pattern (of having a clause "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") are these:


Those rules are all special rules of the unit (ie, "a unit . . . <special rule>") but they include different specific clauses that regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit with the attached IC in a different way).

Fleet, Deep Strike, and Swarms require both IC and joined unit to have the actual special rule or none can benefit from its effects while Jink allows the extent of the special rule of the unit to be determined on an explicit model by model basis.


As we have already gone over, On Target includes no such clause. On Target includes nothing "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special)" that extends the special rule of the unit to the attached IC.

Therefore, the IC Special Rules rule is still in effect and On Target does not extend the benefit of its special rule of the unit to the attached IC.

col_impact wrote:
It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.

Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.

col_impact wrote:
I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?

So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.

Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.

col_impact wrote:
I have merely pointed out that as of yet you have wholly failed to provide for On Target something that satisfies the requisites laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and that you cannot ignore plainly stated rules (unless you want to go the route of a house rule).

But I have, that is the odd part, is your memory so poor?

Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".

And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.

This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.

Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.

col_impact wrote:
I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?

So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.

Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.

I would like to politely point out that making baseless accusations or personal attacks has no place in YMDC. I politely suggest you stick to proving your argument rather than stooping to such tactics. If you want you can PM me with your accusations/attacks and maybe we can get to the bottom of your personal problems with me. But YMDC is not the place for personal attacks or baseless accusations.


Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn. By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.

Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"

The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")

On Target has no such specific regulatory clauses whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

It's fine if you want to hand-wave away that requirement via house rule, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
It's odd that you would accuse someone of such things who simply holds your argument up to a standard of proof.

Nope. You made claims about my position I never have once stated. You have done this numerous times. I called you out the last few times it happened. You have used the same arguments I used to try and prove my arguments were false, not to turn them against me, but the same literal arguments.

col_impact wrote:
I politely suggest that instead of calling me a liar or some 'argument stealer' you simply prove what you say. We wouldn't want the thread to think that you are resorting to some Smoke Screen tactic of making baseless accusations to try and redirect attention away from the lack of support in your argument now would we?

So instead of calling me a liar simply prove your argument.

Oh, the accusations have a base in fact. And I have proved my arguments. I have disproved yours. More to the point, yours has no standing.

I would like to politely point out that making such baseless accusations has no place in YMDC. I politely suggest you stick to proving your argument rather than stooping to such tactics. If you want you can PM me with your accusations.


Fleet, Move Through Cover, and Counter-Attack all have specifically stated logical "clauses" that are alternates to the Stubborn pattern which specifically regulate the sharing of the special rules of the unit and the IC, but in a way different than Stubborn. By including specifically stated logical clauses in the rule itself like Stubborn but with different logical consequence than Stubborn, they have permission to redefine the 'no sharing' that has been established as the default by the IC Special Rules rule.

Fleet = "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule"
Move Through Cover = "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" + "a model with the Move Through Cover special rule . . ."
Counter-Attack = "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" + "every model with the Counter-attack special rule"

The IC Special Rules rule indicate that without something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", the benefits of the special rules of the IC and special rules of the unit are not shared. There is no automatic extending of the benefit of the special rule of the unit for simply being a special rule of the unit (ie "a unit . . . <special rule>")

On Target has no such specific regulatory clauses whatsoever so nothing is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" so On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

You are simply failing to adhere to the requirements of the IC Special Rules rule and are continuing to be unable to point to the requisite something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

It's fine if you want to hand-wave away that requirement via house rule, but the IC Special Rules rule is exceedingly clear that you have to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

Therefore, you can come to no other RAW conclusion than that On Target does not extend the benefit of the special rule of the unit to the IC.

You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

Let me ask you this:

Must you create a potentially illegal situation in the game? We all know the IC rules are sloppy ("for all rules purposes" / exceptions apply).

I don't try to shoot other weapons first before firing an ordnance weapon. You don't have to e.g. attach a destroyer lord to a unit of deathmarks and try to benefit from an unclear situation.

Why not follow the more conservative point of view here? I do not attach IC's to a Skyhammer formation for above reason.

nekooni wrote:


You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Let me ask you this:

Must you create a potentially illegal situation in the game? We all know the IC rules are sloppy ("for all rules purposes" / exceptions apply).

I don't try to shoot other weapons first before firing an ordnance weapon. You don't have to e.g. attach a destroyer lord to a unit of deathmarks and try to benefit from an unclear situation.

Why not follow the more conservative point of view here? I do not attach IC's to a Skyhammer formation for above reason.

It's not illegal for you to attach ICs to a Skyhammer formation. This is more an issue of sorting out what happens when someone does.

The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that the special rules do not extend their effect unless something is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the effect to be extended.

So the burden is entirely on the player who is trying to have the IC benefit from the Skyhammer formation rules to point definitively to something "specified in the [Skyhammer formation rules themselves] (as in Stubborn)" that enables them to extend the Skyhammer rule to the attached IC.

Ok I give up. I tried to stay neutral but feth it, I'm annoyed.

Charistoph wrote:
Oh, that's right, you believe in a phrase that is one of two clauses in Stubborn that is never specifically called out as being the only key phrase. What is worse is that it is completely ignoring the actual language of that phrase. You believe that "if a unit has at least one person with a banana" that "everyone gets a banana", but ONLY with that phrase. But the sentence is written with a two conditions and set up as "if a unit has at least one person with a banana during a fruit check".

The other side of the argument has already said that there is no key phrase that is needed. Just the fact that there is a clause is the important thing.
Dok's Tools: "As long as the bearer is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule."
Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
As you can see, there is more than one way to express the clause. If you look at any Unit Special Rule in the game, from any codex, there is a clause for when to include IC's. This is a precedent set and included in the BRB and in every rulebook of every codex.
In your example, I do not understand why you emphasise the second condition of the ability. In your example, the clause check is performed during the 'fruit check'. In Counter-attack, it is during the charge. In Dok's Tools, it is as long as the Bearer is alive. What is your point?

Harkequin loves to try and contest this with

harkequin wrote:
Now can you refute this.
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.
Ic is part of "vanguard Veteran Squad"
"vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge

There is no need to refute this. It is all 100% right. But there is only one thing that he is forgetting (or just plain ignoring) with this sequence of events.

wrote:"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge. Correct.
Ic is part of "Vanguard Veteran Squad". Yes, correct.
>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<
"Vanguard Veteran Squad" may charge.

I do not understand how he justifies skipping that very important step. It is a rule that must be followed because "On Target" is a unit special rule and there is an IC in the unit, therefore fulfilling the two requirements that force you to go through another step.

Then there are the other people who talk about the Blind special rule. And how if our interpretation is correct, then Blind wouldn't affect attached IC's.
For some reason, these people can't comprehend that BLIND is an ONGOING EFFECT SPECIAL RULE.
There is a separate section for ONGOING EFFECTS. They can't comprehend the difference between ONGOING EFFECTS and UNIT SPECIAL RULES.

Charistoph wrote:
And in all of this, "Independent Character" is NEVER stated once in Stubborn, not to include them, not to exclude them, not literally at all. The only place you can find "independent character" in relation to this rule is by considering the already written rule that states, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." Stubborn is not including the IC with the words "at least one model" (though this is still an important condition for other factors), but only in "a unit". We have not been given any other information for any other connection.

Correct, IC is never stated once in Stubborn. Who is refuting this? Not a single person in the world.
"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."
We are told that it must be specified. IT MUST BE SPECIFIED in SOME WAY. We look at any unit special rule in the game and they follow this precedent of needing a clause.
Stubborn does this through "When a unit that contains at least one model"
Dok's Tools does this through "All models in his unit"
"A Vanguard Veteran squad" HAS NO SPECIFICATION.
Is the IC a part of the Vet Squad? YES. NO ONE REFUTES THAT. THE ONLY TIME IT IS NOT THE CASE, IS FOR UNIT SPECIAL RULES.
If the squad wishes to use it's UNIT special rule of charging from reserves, LIKE ALL THE OTHER SPECIAL RULES, it must pass the checklist of having a clause of some sort.
Does "A Vanguard Veteran squad" pass the specification clause? NO IT DOES NOT.

Charistoph wrote:
This is why the unit's reroll with Fleet works when the IC has Fleet along with the unit. This is why an IC without Counter-Attack in a unit with it, will "respond" with the unit, but not receive any benefit from it, even though Counter-Attack starts with "When a unit with at least one model with this special rule". This is why an IC without Move Through Cover in a unit with Move Through Cover will benefit while moving through Difficult Terrain, but not be be able to automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests.

More baseless misdirection. Completely incorrect.

Fleet: "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll, for example)."
This is super straightforward. What about this rule are you having difficulty comprehending? All models in the unit must have fleet for the re-rolls. Do all the models have fleet? Go through every single model in the unit and check if it has fleet. If yes, then the unit can re-roll. The end. What are you trying to pull here. I have a feeling you have resorted to throwing up meaningless smokescreens that serve no other purpose than to bog down the argument.
>Is the unit composed entirely of models with fleet?
>Check model-by-model
>If yes, they get to re-roll

Counter-Attack: "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase."
This is also super straightforward. If a unit has at least one model with with this special rule and that unit is charged, the effected models get +1A.
>Unit is charged.
>Does the unit contain at least one model with Counter-Attack
>If yes, then the models with Counter-Attack get +1A

On Target: "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) arrives from reserve
>Vanguard Veteran Squad (IC Attached) wants to charge from reserves via '... On Target' special rule.
>However, because '... On Target' is a unit special rule and there is an IC attached to the unit, it must pass a check before the IC can also charge from reserve via '... On Target'. This check cannot be skipped because I randomly feel like skipping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>"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."<<<<<<<<<<<
>Check failed.
>Vanguard Veteran Squad cannot charge because there is a model in the unit that cannot charge.

Stop beating around the bush. Your argument tactics revolve around smokescreens, out of context quotes, misdirection or just plain ignoring the opposition. Large blobs of writing with NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

col_impact wrote:

nekooni wrote:


You've repeatedly claimed that he said "special rules transfer to ICs" while all he was saying was "we are talking about transferring effects,not the special rule itself". misrepresenting other people's argument also has no place in this forum . How else, aside from pointing out that it is not what he claims, should one defend himself from that ?

He can politely point out that is not what he claims and then point out what he claims and stick to a polite and constructive discussion of the rules. Accusations of 'liar', 'argument-stealer' are melodramatic and have no place in this

Just go through this thread . I have tried to be polite, but you just kept making the same false claim even while I explained to you the difference (simply explaining the difference between what was said and what you claimed was said) you refused to even consider that your interpretation of what was written by him could be different from your claim of what he said.

That you are accused of being a liar in this thread is simply your own fault for making up and sticking to claims that were clearly false,as could be seen by simply reading your "opponents" text and comparing it with what you claimed they said.

Calling people liars is simply inflammatory and not allowed on YMDC. If someone has my argument wrong, I simply correct them. We are all responsible for maintaining a polite forum.

Also, at this point it's off-topic. Do you have something that you would like to contribute to the topic of the thread?

Feel free to PM me if you want to continue discussing YMDC thread politeness decorum.