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

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule makes it clear that simply joining a unit does not allow the special rules of the unit to extend to the attached IC. The default for an IC joined to a unit is as expressed below.

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

[I have simply removed the "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" to logically prove that this is the default when an IC joins a unit]

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yes, you're done here have been for 18'pages.

VVS is as specific as stubborn, as it calls out the unit, and the ICs normal membership of the unit. Without the normal member of the unit rule, you have no permission to talk about the IC in stubborn, at all. This has been proven over and over.

So you failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that overrides the default state of no sharing of the benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit.

Got it. That means On Target does not extend its benefits to the attached IC. Your concession on this matter is accepted.

So we are done here.

Yawn

No, not at all.

NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC

It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.

Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yawn

No, not at all.

NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC

It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.

Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.

What's the "normal member" rule? Is it something specified in the On Target rule itself? If it isn't specified in the On Target rule itself it isn't going to override the IC Special Rules rule, per the IC Special Rules rule.

Try again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

Rasko wrote:

I just did. Disprove it.

The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.



So pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.

So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.

So your case has been disproven yet again.

Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he 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 pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.

So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.

So your case has been disproven yet again.

Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

Incorrect. Why not address the actual points I made instead of just the challenge?

#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.

#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.

#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.

#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.

#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.

THEREFORE: How does it all work and relate to On Target/First the Fire Then the Blade?
1) Independent Characters join a unit and become part of that unit for all rules purposes. Whatever happens to that unit as a whole will affect the IC joined to that unit. Their own unit identity is not acknowledged while joined.

2) The Special Rules the unit possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the IC, nor are the Special Rules the IC possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the unit it is in.

3) Unless the rule specifies as in Stubborn. How does Stubborn specify?

4) Stubborn provides a list of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. Stubborn carries two conditions: contains at least one model with this special rule, taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

A unit with Stubborn joined by an IC without, will not be affected by 'its after me!'* if they lose Combat and make a Morale Check to leave Combat. Stubborn is "conferred" as far as it goes.

However, the same unit when hit by the Necron Gaze of Death (unit takes 3D6-LD Wounds) with the IC still affected by 'its after me!'*, may be relying on their Sergeant's Leadership rather than the IC's since they are not taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test and may be lower than the rest of the unit's.

If the same IC leaves the Stubborn unit and gets in another Combat, or if the unit is wiped out in the Phase before, it is not longer fulfilling the conditions of Stubborn so will be in danger of negative affects when taking Morale or Pinning Tests.

5) In order for On Target to work, a unit must have a specific name: 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'. The unit must be arriving from Deep Strike. This unit is granted permission to Charge. For another effect, it must be attempting to Deep Strike within range of 2 other units with a specific name: 'Scout Squad'.

On Target provides a lit of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. It is exactly the same as Stubborn in this respect.

The main differences are that On Target is never going to be carried by an IC and only by a unit, so including a specific clause that only considers a case where a Character gets the rule and the rest of the unit does not is pointless and beyond redundant. Also that people are used to Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful, but On Target is new and considered over-powered to begin with.

If you want to discuss On Target from not allowing the IC to Charge due to it being a permission and not an effect, I welcome it, as it is a different consideration than what we have largely been discussing, as I said earlier.

But Charging or not, if that IC is joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad from a Shadowstrike Kill Team, is the first model to be placed for a Deep Strike, and it is within range of two Scout Squads from the same Shadowstrike Kill Team, it does not scatter.

*‘It’s after me!’ is the Tyranid Unique Deathleaper special rule: Nominate an enemy character at the beginning of the game and roll a D3. Whilst Deathleaper is alive, that model’s Leadership is reduced by the result.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that we are dealing with a unit composed of an IC and a joined unit [note the red] and has indicated [in yellow] what the default state is.

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. . . . [T]he 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 pointing to "a unit" (which is not a clause by the way) is not specifying anything beyond the default state of affairs which the IC Special Rules rule has already deemed as 'no sharing of benefits'. The special rules of the unit are not extended to the IC "unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

If you are going to rely on the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IC rule then you are relying on something that is not specified in the special rule itself and you are relying on something that the IC Special Rules rule has already overridden with its own rules.

So again, you are failing to point something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

In the case of Stubborn, the sharing of benefits of the special rules of the unit and the attached IC happens from this clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") which is specified in the Stubborn rule itself and logically extends the benefit of the Stubborn special rule of the unit to any joined models.

So your case has been disproven yet again.

Come to the thread when you are prepared to actually point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

Incorrect. Why not address the actual points I made instead of just the challenge?

#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.

#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.

#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.

#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.

#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.

THEREFORE: How does it all work and relate to On Target/First the Fire Then the Blade?
1) Independent Characters join a unit and become part of that unit for all rules purposes. Whatever happens to that unit as a whole will affect the IC joined to that unit. Their own unit identity is not acknowledged while joined.

2) The Special Rules the unit possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the IC, nor are the Special Rules the IC possesses are not granted/transferred/given to the unit it is in.

3) Unless the rule specifies as in Stubborn. How does Stubborn specify?

4) Stubborn provides a list of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. Stubborn carries two conditions: contains at least one model with this special rule, taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test.

A unit with Stubborn joined by an IC without, will not be affected by 'its after me!'* if they lose Combat and make a Morale Check to leave Combat. Stubborn is "conferred" as far as it goes.

However, the same unit when hit by the Necron Gaze of Death (unit takes 3D6-LD Wounds) with the IC still affected by 'its after me!'*, may be relying on their Sergeant's Leadership rather than the IC's since they are not taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test and may be lower than the rest of the unit's.

If the same IC leaves the Stubborn unit and gets in another Combat, or if the unit is wiped out in the Phase before, it is not longer fulfilling the conditions of Stubborn so will be in danger of negative affects when taking Morale or Pinning Tests.

5) In order for On Target to work, a unit must have a specific name: 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'. The unit must be arriving from Deep Strike. This unit is granted permission to Charge. For another effect, it must be attempting to Deep Strike within range of 2 other units with a specific name: 'Scout Squad'.

On Target provides a lit of conditions for the unit to pass and then affects the unit when it fulfills them. It is exactly the same as Stubborn in this respect.

The main differences are that On Target is never going to be carried by an IC and only by a unit, so including a specific clause that only considers a case where a Character gets the rule and the rest of the unit does not is pointless and beyond redundant. Also that people are used to Stubborn, Fearless, and Slow and Purposeful, but On Target is new and considered over-powered to begin with.

If you want to discuss On Target from not allowing the IC to Charge due to it being a permission and not an effect, I welcome it, as it is a different consideration than what we have largely been discussing, as I said earlier.

But Charging or not, if that IC is joined to a Vanguard Veteran Squad from a Shadowstrike Kill Team, is the first model to be placed for a Deep Strike, and it is within range of two Scout Squads from the same Shadowstrike Kill Team, it does not scatter.

*‘It’s after me!’ is the Tyranid Unique Deathleaper special rule: Nominate an enemy character at the beginning of the game and roll a D3. Whilst Deathleaper is alive, that model’s Leadership is reduced by the result.

on target, first the fire then the blade do not specify they benefit the unit.

when you are considering the IC joined to an Unit, the IC and the unit have separate special rules. We are told this under the section for ICs joining units. You have to look at the IC datasheet separetly than the veteran vanguard datasheet when determining rules simply because the rules actually tell you to do so. Even joined, they are treated separately in the rules at this step and it is not possible to find the ICs rules on the veteran vanguard squad datasheet. At which time you do so the IC is not on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet and vice versa. As such 'on target' cannot affect an IC, because it references the name of the datasheet. This coupled with the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules is why it does not work, when you check for the IC and Unit separetly for special rules to see who was what, as directed by the rules in the book to do so- the IC is not the vanguard veteran squad and the vanguard veteran squad is not the IC. The rules for ICs and joining units show that we are too look at them separately to determine who has what special rules, not together. If it were together they would not differentiate the unit and the IC during this check in the rulebook.

and in 7th counts as= is. The IC cannot count as being in the squad and not be in the squad at the same time- its not a shroedinger IC. It is a member of the unit for all purposes, except where noted. ICs joining units and special rules is such an exception as they treat them separately even when joined for checking if the special rules work with each other.

bottom line, the rule does not specify in any form it benefits the unit.

unrelated-

-ghost- there are rules that specify they affect units in a formation, and any attached IC off the top of my head the harlequin codex has a few.

Charistoph wrote:
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.

I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.

If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?

So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".

So your #1 is wholly refuted.

Charistoph wrote:
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.

I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.



So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule.

So your #2 is wholly refuted.

Charistoph wrote:
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.

The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule doesn't really care about the particulars of the special rules in question. It leaves all that business up to the special rules themselves. The IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.

So your #3 is wholly refuted.

Charistoph wrote:
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.

The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".

So your #4 is wholly refuted.

Charistoph wrote:
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.

You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit)
Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit)
Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model)
Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit

It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.
It can get really complicated when we consider the exceptional cases of ICs with their own 'sub-units' (e.g. joined Fenrisian Wolf characters) who then join another unit, but again all we are doing is simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.

All that complexity is wonderfully simplified into a simple scan for a model with stubborn. If yes then the entire unit benefits from Stubborn. And that's all it takes for an attached IC to get stubborn from the joined unit.

Again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the entire unit, however complex that unit is defined.

And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.

So your #5 is wholly refuted.


So basically you have no argument.

But we already knew that.

The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.

If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.

blaktoof wrote:on target, first the fire then the blade do not specify they benefit the unit.

Explain, then, what entity they do benefit if they are not benefiting a unit? You have never properly explained this, so either you are epicly wrong or you are using a different ruleset.

What qualifies as a "Vanguard Veteran Squad" or "Assault Marine Squad" that can arrive by Deep Strike and Charge?

blaktoof wrote:when you are considering the IC joined to an Unit, the IC and the unit have separate special rules. We are told this under the section for ICs joining units. You have to look at the IC datasheet separetly than the veteran vanguard datasheet when determining rules simply because the rules actually tell you to do so. Even joined, they are treated separately in the rules at this step and it is not possible to find the ICs rules on the veteran vanguard squad datasheet. At which time you do so the IC is not on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet and vice versa. As such 'on target' cannot affect an IC, because it references the name of the datasheet. This coupled with the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules is why it does not work, when you check for the IC and Unit separetly for special rules to see who was what, as directed by the rules in the book to do so- the IC is not the vanguard veteran squad and the vanguard veteran squad is not the IC. The rules for ICs and joining units show that we are too look at them separately to determine who has what special rules, not together. If it were together they would not differentiate the unit and the IC during this check in the rulebook.

So you believe in the 2-in-1 theory that an IC joined to a unit is not one unit, but two?

If this was the case, I could just shoot out your ICs from the unit, and an IC could not benefit from Stubborn from the unit it joined. In addition, there is zero support for this in the actual rulebook we are using on this forum board.

By the way, we have repeatedly stated that the literal transference of the rules between the unit and IC is not how Stubborn works. Stubborn doesn't copy itself from the Dark Angel Tactical Squad and send the copy to the Blood Angel Captain. Those rules stay where they are at. We do agree with you on that mark.

You just need to understand that there is more going on here than that. Col_impact at least has that part down.

blaktoof wrote:and in 7th counts as= is. The IC cannot count as being in the squad and not be in the squad at the same time- its not a shroedinger IC. It is a member of the unit for all purposes, except where noted. ICs joining units and special rules is such an exception as they treat them separately even when joined for checking if the special rules work with each other.

Incorrect. "Counts as" = "temporarily is" to indicate a status that will not last, or "operating as", or "to be considered as", not as a pure "is". It is used in no other fashion.

A Flyer with Hover "counts as" a Fast Skimmer. If it actually became a Fast Skimmer, it could not revert to becoming a Flyer again. A Flying Monstrous Creature when Gliding would actually just BE a Jump Monstrous Creature and could never Swoop again.

blaktoof wrote:bottom line, the rule does not specify in any form it benefits the unit.

Bottom line, you have no clue about the relationship between units, models, and datasheets. Datasheets do not Charge. Army List Entries do not Charge.

And no Harlequin Formation Special Rule specifies ICs gaining a unit's benefit.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.

I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.

If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?

So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".

So your #1 is wholly refuted.

Yet, it is not literally stated as such. So, your argument here is not but an assumption of what you think the author intended. Marking this one as HYWPI, therefore lack of a RAW refute.

The ironic thing here is, I do not completely disagree. The difference is that I take it that section in IC Special Rules to mean exactly what it literally states, and that the rule itself cannot be transferred between IC and unit. Like Blacktoof said above, the rule does not transfer from datasheet to datasheet.

The only way around this is how Stubborn does it. How does Stubborn do it? Not by transferring any rule, but by placing the benefit on the unit the IC is in. And it is by placing that benefit on the whole unit without reservation of possession by the model (like Counter-Attack or Fleet) is how Stubborn "confers".

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.

I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.

Spoiler:

Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot

So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule.

So your #2 is wholly refuted.

Counter-Attack does not actually provide any bonuses to an attached IC without Counter-Attack, by the way.

USRs (Unversal Special Rules) in the BRB can be carried by IC or by unit. Show me the IC in the Skyhammer or Shadowstrike Formations.

And you have continuously harped on how much this phrase is required, yet when it is completed in spirit, you cannot accept it. Show me a Shadowstrike Veteran Vanguard Squad that does not contain at least one model with On Target.

Your Refutation is therefore ignored as pointless and hypocritical.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.

The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.

So your #3 is wholly refuted.

Incorrect. ALL the clauses state who benefits. The unit cannot benefit unless ALL the requirements are met. You are only making assumptions that one clause of two is required. Singling out one phrase as a requirement is making an assumption from the author, especially without a statement specifically stating that.

Marking this one HYWPI, based on RAA. Refutation meaningless.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.

The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".

So your #4 is wholly refuted.

The funny part with this one is that you actually support what I am saying with it. Because that IC is being represented by that word "unit" in order for it to actually work, but only by that word "unit".

So, your refutation is actually backfired to support what I have actually been saying about it.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.

You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

I am not getting confused. I am perfectly aware of what I was saying and the direction I was going. You apparently do not. Let's try it again.

When looking at the rule from the perspective of the IC not having the rule, but it benefits, we already know that this model does NOT have the special rule.

We know the unit already has this special rule so it already contains at least one model with this special rule.

The IC would not be classified as "at least one model with this special rule".

Therefore, this specific part of the phrase would only work specifically when a Character would be carrying the rule.

Therefore, when transferring a unit's special rule benefit to the IC, this particular clause is unimportant.

That is the language of this clause.

col_impact wrote:Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit)
Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit)
Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model)
Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit

It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.

But again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the unit.

And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.

So your #5 is wholly refuted.

Ironically, you end up more supporting my argument with this than you may realize. The phrase itself is not important when looking at it from the perspective of going from the unit to the IC, but it is important when going to the IC from the unit.

Then we consider a rule that will never be possessed by an IC. How important would it be to have "at least one model with this special rule" when it is being literally fulfilled?

You're already making RAA with the "rules means benefits", why can you not extend this beyond that consideration then?

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.

If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.

Already proven. Your points do not take in to considerations my argument's perspective or rely on your own prejudiced assumptions of author intent. They ignore what Stubborn ACTUALLY says and go off making more prejudiced assumptions of author intent to rely on one clause and not all of them.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#1) The IC Special Rules section state nothing about not conferring benefits, just the special rules. "Benefits" and "special rules" are not synonymous. One is the cause of the other. A punch and a bruise are not the same thing. Nor is this a rejection of the IC as being part of the unit when affected by a Special Rule. This is adding intention in to the actual rules. Intention which is not supported by any other actual language in the rulebook, I might add.

I adhere to the usage of confer in the BRB which means "to extend the effect of the special rule". I do not have permission to assert a dictionary definition that contradicts BRB usage. Also, YMDC does not allow the use of a dictionary in rules discussions.

If you insist on going against the usage of confer in the BRB and define 'confer' as "grant/bestow a rule" the game breaks. If special rules were actually bestowed upon ICs when they joined, they would still have those bestowed special rules when they leave the unit. That's what grant/bestow means, or did you not realize that?

So we look at the usage of "confer" in the case of Stubborn and it is obvious that confer can only mean "to extend the effect of the special rule".

So your #1 is wholly refuted.

Yet, it is not literally stated as such. So, your argument here is not but an assumption of what you think the author intended. Marking this one as HYWPI, therefore lack of a RAW refute.

The ironic thing here is, I do not completely disagree. The difference is that I take it that section in IC Special Rules to mean exactly what it literally states, and that the rule itself cannot be transferred between IC and unit. Like Blacktoof said above, the rule does not transfer from datasheet to datasheet.

The only way around this is how Stubborn does it. How does Stubborn do it? Not by transferring any rule, but by placing the benefit on the unit the IC is in. And it is by placing that benefit on the whole unit without reservation of possession by the model (like Counter-Attack or Fleet) is how Stubborn "confers".

I adhere strictly to the usage of confer in the BRB and that is how I claim RAW.

If you are taking a dictionary meaning of confer over the usage of confer in the BRB, then you are the one who is going against RAW.

That's what RAW mean, so unless you can point to a rule in the BRB that allows you to use the dictionary as a rule source that trumps the BRB, then your argument is being tossed aside on this point as silly and so obviously against RAW as to be laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#2) The IC Special Rules section never state a specific phrase being the key. Not once. If you truly believe it does, please quote only the IC Special Rules section and highlight where it names the specific phrase.

I never said that there had to be a " one exact specifically written phrase" only that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)". In fact, I have presented many different ways that the special rules of the unit can accomplish the logical incorporation of attached models. However, it should be pointed out that the BRB does follow a very recognizable pattern and the specific phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is exactly incorporated into all the special rules of the unit that would extend their benefits to the attached IC.

Spoiler:

Acute Senses
Adamantium Will
And They Shall Know No Fear
Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers
Counter-attack
Crusader
Fearless
Infiltrate
Hit & Run
Monster Hunter
Move Through Cover
Night Vision
Preferred Enemy
Shrouded
Scout
Skilled Rider
Slow and Purposeful
Split Fire
Stealth
Stubborn
Tank Hunters
Zealot

So the BRB is very religious about including "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". There are other ways to specifically incorporate attached models to the unit, but the BRB sure prefers this one. The important thing to recognize is that a special rule has to include that clause or something specifically functioning in its place to satisfy the "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" requirement. On Target does not provide anything to satisfy this requirement of the IC Special Rules rule.

So your #2 is wholly refuted.

Counter-Attack does not actually provide any bonuses to an attached IC without Counter-Attack, by the way.

USRs (Unversal Special Rules) in the BRB can be carried by IC or by unit. Show me the IC in the Skyhammer or Shadowstrike Formations.

And you have continuously harped on how much this phrase is required, yet when it is completed in spirit, you cannot accept it. Show me a Shadowstrike Veteran Vanguard Squad that does not contain at least one model with On Target.

Your Refutation is therefore ignored as pointless and hypocritical.

You cannot just complete the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule "in spirit". The IC Special Rules rule requires you to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or else the special rules of the unit do not extend to the attached IC and vice versa.

So you need to pay the requirement. That's the rules as they are written. There is no way around it unless you want to invoke upon the power of house ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#3) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is only one part of the clauses and conditions in which Stubborn can apply to the unit. The other part is "taking Morale Checks and Pinning Tests". An IC without Stubborn in a unit with Stubborn will not benefit from Stubborn against Leadership Tests that are not Pinning or Morale Checks. This first phrase is insufficient.

The first clause defines who benefits. In this case a clause is provided that will extend the benefit of the rule to the whole unit if any one model has the special rule. The rest of the rule deals with the particular mechanics of the special rule of the unit, which in this case we are dealing with Stubborn. The IC Special Rules rule regulates how the benefits of special rules are extended between the unit and attached models (and vice versa) and the clause "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is entirely sufficient to this task.

So your #3 is wholly refuted.

Incorrect. ALL the clauses state who benefits. The unit cannot benefit unless ALL the requirements are met. You are only making assumptions that one clause of two is required. Singling out one phrase as a requirement is making an assumption from the author, especially without a statement specifically stating that.

Marking this one HYWPI, based on RAA. Refutation meaningless.

Nobody is saying that you can ignore requirements or the mechanics of the special rule while implementing a special rule. But the IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the effects of the special rules are shared between attached IC and the joined unit. The IC Special Rules rule makes no mention of Leadership Tests, Pinning, or Morale checks and therefore is implementing no rules of its own in those areas that would need to be overridden. It leaves all that to the particular special rule to regulate.

So you need to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule and meet its requirements and only its requirements. That is RAW. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue by rattling on and on about non-relevant stuff as if it mattered. The rules are exceedingly clear. It is you who are being willfully unclear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#4) The Phrase "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" never specifies an "Independent Character" at all. So, either Stubborn never specifies how it confers to an IC without Stubborn, or the IC is represented elsewhere.

The IC is a model joined to the unit. And Stubborn specifies how its benefit will extend to the entire unit if just one model has the special rule. That's how the logic of a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule works. That one model could be the IC or a single model in the joined unit. We don't know. We just know the "no sharing of benefits" between IC and the joined unit that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule has been overridden and we now have the sharing of benefits of special rules between IC and the joined unit by virtue of the logic in "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".

So your #4 is wholly refuted.

The funny part with this one is that you actually support what I am saying with it. Because that IC is being represented by that word "unit" in order for it to actually work, but only by that word "unit".

So, your refutation is actually backfired to support what I have actually been saying about it.

And if the IC Special Rules rule did not exist, then your argument would win out. But the rule exists and you cannot ignore it. The IC Special Rules rule has indicated clearly in the case of a 'combined unit' (ie a unit comprised of an IC attached to a unit he joins) that the special rules of the unit and the special rules of the IC are not extended to the other party.

The IC Special Rules rule also indicates quite clearly that the only way to extend the benefits of special rules from a joined unit to the attached IC (and vice versa) is to include something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

I have been able to successfully point to the exact something in Stubborn (ie a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") that is being required of the IC Special Rules rule and have proven how the clause logically works to indeed extend the benefits of the special rules from the joined unit to the attached IC.

You have been wholly unable to point to anything in the On Target rule. Therefore the On Target special rule does not extend to the attached IC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
#5) The second part of "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" is talking about a "model with this special rule", so it cannot be talking about a model without this special rule. Therefore, it most definitely cannot be talking about a joined IC without this special rule we are transferring.

You are getting confused. The clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) extends the effect of the special rule of the unit to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule. This clause all on its own will logically extend the effect of Stubborn from the attached IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

I am not getting confused. I am perfectly aware of what I was saying and the direction I was going. You apparently do not. Let's try it again.

When looking at the rule from the perspective of the IC not having the rule, but it benefits, we already know that this model does NOT have the special rule.

We know the unit already has this special rule so it already contains at least one model with this special rule.

The IC would not be classified as "at least one model with this special rule".

Therefore, this specific part of the phrase would only work specifically when a Character would be carrying the rule.

Therefore, when transferring a unit's special rule benefit to the IC, this particular clause is unimportant.

That is the language of this clause.

col_impact wrote:Case 1: attached model has stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from attached model to joined unit)
Case 2: attached model has stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from both attached model and joined unit)
Case 3: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit has Stubborn => Stubborn to whole unit (from joined unit to attached model)
Case 4: attached model does not have Stubborn, joined unit does not have Stubborn => no Stubborn to the whole unit

It gets more complicated when we consider the additional cases of other ICs attached to the unit, but we are simply scanning for 1 model with Stubborn in the unit.

But again, logically all that is required is that one model in the unit have Stubborn for the benefits of Stubborn to be extended to the unit.

And the clause exactly meets the requirements laid out by the IC Special Rules rule and will exactly override the default state of 'no sharing of the benefits of special rules' that has been explicitly put in place by the IC Special Rules rule. The clause specifically regulates the sharing of benefits of special rules between attached models and the joined unit.

So your #5 is wholly refuted.

Ironically, you end up more supporting my argument with this than you may realize. The phrase itself is not important when looking at it from the perspective of going from the unit to the IC, but it is important when going to the IC from the unit.

Then we consider a rule that will never be possessed by an IC. How important would it be to have "at least one model with this special rule" when it is being literally fulfilled?

You're already making RAA with the "rules means benefits", why can you not extend this beyond that consideration then?

The IC Special Rules rule handles the extending of the effect of special rules from both perspectives. The perspective of the IC does not get special consideration and is still subject to having to provide something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".

I realize that you want to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule. But it's a rule that has power over the On Target special rule and you cannot ignore it. You need to pay its requirements in order to extend the benefit of the On Target rule to the attached IC and that means pointing to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in the case of On Target, and you have been wholly unable to point to anything.

If we were discussing house rules none of this would matter, so I suggest that you start describing your argument as a house rule so that it can sidestep the IC Special Rules rule which is defeating your argument.

Already proven. Your points do not take in to considerations my argument's perspective or rely on your own prejudiced assumptions of author intent. They ignore what Stubborn ACTUALLY says and go off making more prejudiced assumptions of author intent to rely on one clause and not all of them.

I adhere exactly to RAW. I cannot take into consideration your argument's perspective unless it is actually supported by RAW.

The only prejudice I have is a prejudice for RAW.

You are trying to pay a requirement "in spirit" (as you put it) rather than actually paying the requirement.

So, sorry, unless you can point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", On Target will not extend the benefits of its special rule to the attached IC.

You have to adhere to the rules and you have to pay the requirements of the rules.

But, hey, if you want to house rule your non-RAW interpretation for your local play group then by all means you should go for it.

In my play group we play strictly by RAW.

Your interpretation rests on reading "conferred" completely out of context and claiming it's the only definition allowed. Conferring a special rule simply does not mean the same as conferring the benefits of a special rule, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. It's being used synonymously with "bestow".

Indeed, and amusingly this is a change not backed up by any rule as written, either. Col cannot point to a rule stating that you must use the 40k definition, and also cannot prove that "benefit" is the contextual definition - because it isn't

They also cannot post to the specific phrase that incorporates the IC in stubborn, which is why Col is ignoring the request to do so. Their argument utterly unraveling at this point

FACT: if you ignore the "normal member of the unit" rule , then stubborn S benefit cannot affect the IC. If you don't ignore it, then it may do. The normal member rule is essential to this working. The EXAMPLE of stubborn - the non exhaustive example, something col believes otherwise it seems - is just that. An example.

Unit with is just as inclusive as "at least one model with"

Col will, however, not back down. Even when proven wrong over and over and over as in this thread and others

Blaktoof is also apparently still confused over VVS being, RAW, the unit name. It is the name of the unit. VVS refers to the unit. They repeat this LIE over and over, hoping people,will forget it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yawn

No, not at all.

NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is to use the "normal member" rule. Similarly, in VVS we have a specification if the unit. Using the "normal member " rule we again include the IC

It is exactly as specific as stubborn. If you continue to ignore the normal member rule for VVS, you cannot then have stubborn benefit an IC. But we know it operates, therefore your stance is contradicted. Again.

Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual rule stating we use 40k definitions - did you find that yet? - or that "confer" means benefit in 40k, which is only your assertion. Or not. Your choice.

I love this guy. I like this style of arguing, it's starting to grow on me. It's so easy. Here, let me try this style again.

Yawn~
NOTHING in Stipubborn specifies the IC. The only way to know thi rule is conferred to the IC is through the use of a clause in the form of "A unit that contains at least one model ...".
Feel to concede any time you like. Or you could pretend there is an actual clause in "... On Target" - did you find that yet? Or not. Your choice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed, and amusingly this is a change not backed up by any rule as written, either. Col cannot point to a rule stating that you must use the 40k definition, and also cannot prove that "benefit" is the contextual definition - because it isn't

They also cannot post to the specific phrase that incorporates the IC in stubborn, which is why Col is ignoring the request to do so. Their argument utterly unraveling at this point

FACT: if you ignore the "normal member of the unit" rule , then stubborn S benefit cannot affect the IC. If you don't ignore it, then it may do. The normal member rule is essential to this working. The EXAMPLE of stubborn - the non exhaustive example, something col believes otherwise it seems - is just that. An example.

Unit with is just as inclusive as "at least one model with"

Col will, however, not back down. Even when proven wrong over and over and over as in this thread and others

Blaktoof is also apparently still confused over VVS being, RAW, the unit name. It is the name of the unit. VVS refers to the unit. They repeat this LIE over and over, hoping people,will forget it.

And it continues. He thinks that if he says FACT in front of something, it makes it true. He literally ignores that Stubborn does not make use of the normal member rule in any way. Hahahhaaha.

Except Stubborn does. It's literally only conferred to the IC because the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC isn't explicitly called out, but is included because, as part of the unit, the IC is part of the target of the effect of Stubborn.

Except Stubborn doesn't. It is literally conferred to the IC through the use of a clause. The IC isn't explicitly called out, but is included in the effect of Stubborn because of a clause that includes it.

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

How does that sentence up there, make use of the 'normal member' rule? The IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes. The only time it is not the case, is in special rules.
For special rules, the IC is not included in the special rule or it's effect until it has been specified.
For Stubborn, the IC is not included in the effect until it says - "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".

Exactly. I agree with your interpretation that the IC is included in the unit being affected and thus gains the benefit of Stubborn. That IS the "normal member" argument that nos and I (and several others) have been arguing for.

How is this any different from being part of a unit getting the benefit of ...On Target? Stubborn gives the unit benefit, and it is only by virtue of being part of the unit that the IC benefits. ...On Target gives the Vanguard Veteran Squad (i.e. unit to everyone that isn't blacktoof) a benefit, and by virtue of being part of the unit for all rules purposes the IC also gets the benefit. Any other reading would require "all rules purposes" to not mean all rules purposes, which makes no sense.

I don't agree that Nos is arguing anything with his tactics but I digress, that isn't important.

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)..."

Stubborn has made a specification that includes the IC in "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an..."
The rule says "unless specified... (as in Stubborn)...". We know that Stubborn has a clause to include IC's to gain the benefit of Stubborn. We can infer there must be a clause of some sort to include the IC.

On Target says "Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation..."
Where is the clause that include IC's to gain the benefit of On Target?

The IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes. The only time it is not the case is in special rules. In Stubborn (and all other special rules), there is a clause to include IC's. In On Target, there is not.

The thing is, Stubborn doesn't specify anything at all that ...On Target doesn't. "If a unit with at least one model..." is just as specific as "A Vanguard Veteran squad...". The IC is a subset of "a unit with at least one model..." just as it is a subset of "a Vanguard Veteran squad...". Stubborn thus provides exactly the same clause for the IC as ...On Target: being part of the unit. There is nothing saying that the Vanguard Veteran squad has to be comprised entirely of models with the rule in order for it to work. The rule targets the Vanguard Veteran squad in its entirety, the rule counts the IC as part of the Vanguard Veteran squad when it applies as per "all rules purposes", the IC is allowed to charge.

Resko - since you don't get it yet

Please show where ICs are SPECIFIED in the stubborn rule. You understand the word "specific", yes? A unit with ... Does not "specify" an IC at all - as without the normal member rule, you don't know you are allowed to count the IC as a member of the unit. It's called a permissive rule set.

Since you will continue to ignore this point, your comcession as per the tenets is accepted. Feel free to not respond further , I will not until you actually address the argument, and follow the tenets instead of breaking rule one.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your interpretation rests on reading "conferred" completely out of context and claiming it's the only definition allowed. Conferring a special rule simply does not mean the same as conferring the benefits of a special rule, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. It's being used synonymously with "bestow".

Show how Stubborn is bestowed onto the IC then. You cannot.

If confer means to bestow then ICs will get Stubborn and other special rules by joining a unit with Stubborn and still have those special rules after leaving the unit. That's what bestow means.

In fact point to any special rule of the unit and show how the rule is bestowed. You cannot.

Here is a list to help you.



I will adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the BRB. They use 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of a special rule". Just look at the use of confer in the case of Stubborn. We have no choice but to follow the usage of 'confer' in the case of Stubborn as the standard.

If you want to actually counter my argument you will need to find usage in the BRB that counters my claim. The dictionary is not a rules source and the use of dictionaries in rules argument is not allowed in YMDC. So good luck with that.

I will continue to use 'confer' the way the BRB uses it. To do otherwise would not be RAW.

In fact anyone who uses a dictionary meaning of 'confer' in place of the actual usage of 'confer' in the BRB is house ruling so please mark your responses as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Resko - since you don't get it yet

Please show where ICs are SPECIFIED in the stubborn rule. You understand the word "specific", yes? A unit with ... Does not "specify" an IC at all - as without the normal member rule, you don't know you are allowed to count the IC as a member of the unit. It's called a permissive rule set.

Since you will continue to ignore this point, your comcession as per the tenets is accepted. Feel free to not respond further , I will not until you actually address the argument, and follow the tenets instead of breaking rule one.

This clause . . .

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

is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.


Nos, point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" in On Target or concede. You have simply been filling up page after page of this thread ignoring that rule requirement.

If you want to hand wave the IC Special Rules rule away then simply mark your posts as HYWPI per the tenets of the forum.


We will continue to mark our threads as RAW since we can definitively point to the clause in Stubborn that incorporates the IC as an attached model and can definitively say that On Target has nothing satisfying "specified in the rules itself (as in Stubborn)" that would do the same so On Target does not extend the effect of its rule to attached ICs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is, Stubborn doesn't specify anything at all that ...On Target doesn't. "If a unit with at least one model..." is just as specific as "A Vanguard Veteran squad...". The IC is a subset of "a unit with at least one model..." just as it is a subset of "a Vanguard Veteran squad...". Stubborn thus provides exactly the same clause for the IC as ...On Target: being part of the unit. There is nothing saying that the Vanguard Veteran squad has to be comprised entirely of models with the rule in order for it to work. The rule targets the Vanguard Veteran squad in its entirety, the rule counts the IC as part of the Vanguard Veteran squad when it applies as per "all rules purposes", the IC is allowed to charge.

The IC Special Rules rule has made it clear that simply being a part of the unit is not sufficient to allow the effects of special rules to extend from the unit to attached ICs and vice versa.


The only exception to this state of 'no sharing' of benefits of special rules between the joined unit and attached ICs is to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

Stubborn includes a clause specified in the rule itself that logically incorporates attached models ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) so we use that as the standard for satisfying the IC Special Rules rule.

On Target includes no such clause or anything "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" so On Target does not get exception to the IC Special Rules rule.


This is a permissive rule set and the burden is on you to definitively satisfy the IC Special Rules rule requirement. You have failed to do so. Therefore On Target does not extend the benefit of its rule to the attached IC.

So it "logically incorporates" the IC, but you cannot point to a rule - other than the normal member rule - that actually states this

Your position CANNOT be raw, as you just stated you have yet again made a rule up.

Mark your posts hywpi, as they fail any test of raw. You have filled page after page with block quotes and walls of text, yet cannot convince anyone of your position.

Stubborn is conferred to the IC by virtue of it being part of the unit for all rules purposes. Once it leaves the unit, it no longer fulfils the conditions for having the rule conferred to it, and thus loses it; hence the various references to ongoing effects that have been made.

I'll try another angle:

The Vanguard Veteran squad without an IC is allowed to charge in the same turn that it deep strikes. The Datasheet rule take precedence over the BRB because the Datasheet rule is more advanced.

The Independent Character is considered a member of the unit (i.e. the Vanguard Veteran Squad) for all rules purposes (i.e. whenever a rule deals with the unit as a whole, the IC is included).

If you don't let the Vanguard Veteran squad charge after deep striking (as long as the state of having deep struck is the only thing preventing the unit from charging) you are not following ...On Target's instructions, letting a less advanced rule take precedence over a more advanced rule.

I'd also be much obliged if you stopped with the whole "please mark your post with X" (and that goes for you too nos). It's pretty damn obvious that we disagree, but that only means that we should continue arguing (or giving up). "Please mark your post X" and variations of it is essentially equivalent to writing I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG LOLOLOLOLOLOL at the end of each post, and there's enough of that on both sides in this thread already.

This clause . . .

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

is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.

Do we know that 100%? Lets apply logic:

To allow Stubborn to be usable by the Unit one Model in the Unit needs this Rule
so this is a condition nothing else. This allows to use Stubborn carried eighter by a model of the Unit or else carried by an IC

When the condition is met then the Unit may use Stubborn.

Your fallacy is that you mix the condition when Stubborn is usable with the user of the rule. Read it this way:
"A Unit that fulfills the required condition may roll..."

So now show me the part that includes the IC as a benefiting model. You can't! Why you can't do that? because Stubborn does not mention the IC as benefiting explicitly.
Why do we still know that a IC is benefitting of the effect of Stubborn? Because we know 100% that a Ic that joins a Unit counts as a full member of that unit for all rule purposes. So every time the Unit as a whole is the target of a effect, or a rule, or a activity the IC is a Model of that Unit.

Now when we look at the VVS there is no explicit condition that has to be fulfilled. It just stated the unit may assault in the same turn after deepstrike.
We apply the logic uses in Stubborn and see as a IC counts as a member of the unit the VVS may still do as On Target allows us to do.

 _ghost_ wrote:
This clause . . .

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

is "specified in the rule itself" and logically incorporates attached models (which the IC is).

The 'normal member' rule is not mentioned in the Stubborn rule itself so we know that cannot be it.

Do we know that 100%? Lets apply logic:

To allow Stubborn to be usable by the Unit one Model in the Unit needs this Rule
so this is a condition nothing else. This allows to use Stubborn carried eighter by a model of the Unit or else carried by an IC

When the condition is met then the Unit may use Stubborn.

Your fallacy is that you mix the condition when Stubborn is usable with the user of the rule. Read it this way:
"A Unit that fulfills the required condition may roll..."

So now show me the part that includes the IC as a benefiting model. You can't! Why you can't do that? because Stubborn does not mention the IC as benefiting explicitly.
Why do we still know that a IC is benefitting of the effect of Stubborn? Because we know 100% that a Ic that joins a Unit counts as a full member of that unit for all rule purposes. So every time the Unit as a whole is the target of a effect, or a rule, or a activity the IC is a Model of that Unit.

Now when we look at the VVS there is no explicit condition that has to be fulfilled. It just stated the unit may assault in the same turn after deepstrike.
We apply the logic uses in Stubborn and see as a IC counts as a member of the unit the VVS may still do as On Target allows us to do.

There is no fallacy in my argument.

You are just trying to pay the requirement of a rule without paying the requirement of a rule.



We know that the IC has joined the unit. That's the given of the IC Special Rules rule



We also know that the IC Special Rules rule overrides the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" by providing exceptions to way the IC is affected by the special rules of the unit. In terms of special rules of the unit, the IC does not count as part of the unit for all purposes, the IC must satisfy and adhere to the IC Special Rules rule instead.



The way an IC gets to benefit from the special rule of a unit is by having something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)"

Now we know that the IC has joined the unit, so the clause . . .

"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" [which is found in Stubborn]

. . . logically incorporates any models that have joined the unit which includes the IC AND overrides the 'no sharing of the effects of special rules' state that the IC Special Rules rule has placed the 'combined unit' in.

So the IC is incorporated with a specific clause in the Stubborn rule itself that does not specifically mention the IC but that nonetheless logically and irrefutably incorporates the IC.


So you must point to something "specified in the [On Target] rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that would logically incorporate any models that have joined the unit. The IC Special Rules rule has decreed that ICs that have joined a unit do not automatically benefit from the special rules of the unit. So you must point to something that will specifically override it IN THE SPECIAL RULE ITSELF (as in Stubborn).

col_impact wrote:
I adhere strictly to the usage of confer in the BRB and that is how I claim RAW.

If you are taking a dictionary meaning of confer over the usage of confer in the BRB, then you are the one who is going against RAW.

That's what RAW mean, so unless you can point to a rule in the BRB that allows you to use the dictionary as a rule source that trumps the BRB, then your argument is being tossed aside on this point as silly and so obviously against RAW as to be laughable.

If you completely adhered to RAW, then you wouldn't be trying to consider what "the spirit" of "confer the special rules" as "confers the benefits of the special rules", but take it as literally as I stated it. The term "confer" is never specifically defined as such. As such any change from the OED is pure assumption.

This gets even more interesting because:

col_impact wrote:
You cannot just complete the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule "in spirit". The IC Special Rules rule requires you to have something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" or else the special rules of the unit do not extend to the attached IC and vice versa.

So you need to pay the requirement. That's the rules as they are written. There is no way around it unless you want to invoke upon the power of house ruling.

If you can change the definition of "confer" by using the spirit of how Stubborn confers its rules, then I can use that same spirit to ignore requiring a literal phrase by just fulfilling its requirements any way. Your hypocrisy here is absolutely amazing.

col_impact wrote:
Nobody is saying that you can ignore requirements or the mechanics of the special rule while implementing a special rule. But the IC Special Rules rule only regulates how the effects of the special rules are shared between attached IC and the joined unit. The IC Special Rules rule makes no mention of Leadership Tests, Pinning, or Morale checks and therefore is implementing no rules of its own in those areas that would need to be overridden. It leaves all that to the particular special rule to regulate.

It makes as much mention of Leadership, Pinning, and Morale Checks as it does "containing at least one model with this special rule". Therefore, this one clause cannot be any more of the requirement than the other. Care to actually quote and highlight where that IC section is as specific as you claim?

From my memory, it is vague only references to how Stubborn works. And Stubborn works with two clauses, not one, and is completely denied with a third.

col_impact wrote:
So you need to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule and meet its requirements and only its requirements. That is RAW. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue by rattling on and on about non-relevant stuff as if it mattered. The rules are exceedingly clear. It is you who are being willfully unclear.

Oddly enough. I have. You are the one adding "spirit" to one rule, and taking one clause literally while ignoring a second.

col_impact wrote:
I adhere exactly to RAW. I cannot take into consideration your argument's perspective unless it is actually supported by RAW.

The only prejudice I have is a prejudice for RAW.

You are trying to pay a requirement "in spirit" (as you put it) rather than actually paying the requirement.

So, sorry, unless you can point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)", On Target will not extend the benefits of its special rule to the attached IC.

You have to adhere to the rules and you have to pay the requirements of the rules.

But, hey, if you want to house rule your non-RAW interpretation for your local play group then by all means you should go for it.

In my play group we play strictly by RAW.

Your very first paragraph quoted above puts this as either RAW is not what you think it means, you are a hypocrite, or you are a liar.

In order for Stubborn's method to change the IC Special Rules section to mean "a unit's special rules' benefits are not conferred to the IC", you have to take the "spirit" of how Stubborn works. You cannot take it literally and still have it work this way.

Even more so, the very reference used carries more conditions that you use, but in order to ignore the second, you have to take the "spirit" of how Stubborn works. This is not taking it literally, which is what RAW (Rules As Written) means.

Keep in mind, that this is applying YOUR standard here, not mine. And it does not hold up under its own weight.

After 30 pages, I don't think we're resolving this. And as its getting rude and snipey I'm just going to close it