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.

karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.

Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"

Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.

Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer

Ah, apologies, I thought you were engaged in a rules debate, in a written form. It isnt "lawyering" to use the actual written words, as opposed to what you made up out of whole cloth

If youre rally (laughably) going down the "it isnt defined" route, then neither is confer, so your argument also falls apart

The truth of it is, your argument CANNOT be RAW, as you are not using the rules as written, instead you are using the rules as altered by karlsovic to suit their argument

That's just using an adjective, it doesn't define "Benefit" as some key word for rules purposes, and certainly not in a way that somehow creates a specific inclusion for ICs joining a unit from the Deathpack formation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isnt "negated" yb that rule. In fact, you need that rule to make stubborn work. Otherwise Stubborns rule cannot work.

Again: you cannot simply change the words used in a rule, and claim "RAW"

Confer does not mean benefit. the rule is SILENT about gaining the benefit of a rule. It only states you do not "get" the rule.

Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer

Ah, apologies, I thought you were engaged in a rules debate, in a written form. It isnt "lawyering" to use the actual written words, as opposed to what you made up out of whole cloth

If youre rally (laughably) going down the "it isnt defined" route, then neither is confer, so your argument also falls apart

The truth of it is, your argument CANNOT be RAW, as you are not using the rules as written, instead you are using the rules as altered by karlsovic to suit their argument

Rubbish, every line of it

a)It IS rules lawyering to try and create some false exception by pointing at some arbitrary word, and saying it doesn't count because one sentence has been written using a few different words than another sentence.
b)I'm not changing words except to paraphrase and explain things in a way that I'd hoped you might understand (wasted effort, it seems)
c)I SAID "confer" was not a specialy defined word! That's my whole point! You're the one trying to create some artificial difference between a rule being "conferred"and a rule being "beneficial". Yeh - they're different words, but not in a meaningful way considering the context in which they're used, and no where in the book does it define what they mean when they use those specific words. They're just various words that GW used when they wrote the book, not some magical loophole you can EXPLOIT to give Rune Priests some random special rule you want to give them. He can ONLY "benefit" from a rule if it has been applied to him, or "conferred" onto him. How else do you suggest the rule can benefit from him?
My neighbour has plenty of money. He hasn't conferred any of his wealth on me, but I guess I "benefit" in an abstract way in that he has no need to rob me. That's about the only variety of "benefit" you're going to get from a rule that wasn't "conferred"


And mate, my argument is EXACTLY RAW. I quoted every single rule of any relevence and explained in detail how they all fit together

Your agument consists of
a) "IC counts as unit for ALLRULES, so it doesn't matter that the special rule says he only gets a special rule if the rule specifies - COZ ALL DA RULZ!"
b) Yeh but "confer" and "benefit" are different words and that's relevent in some non-explained way"
c) I'm on da RAW side

You're being obtuse, either deliberately or through ignorance, and it's very annoying

nekooni wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
Benefit is not defined so you can't use it to lawyer an answer

But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.

Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Actually, it is important to note that things like "For Glory, For Russ", Skyhammer's "First the Fire, then the Blade", and Talon Strike Force's "... On Target" are not ongoing effects.
Ongoing Effects are clearly defined as a lasting effect.

IC and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.

While these are 'effects' of a special rule, in that they are what the rule does, they do not fall under the Ongoing Effects category.
"Any unit within 12" of the Wolf Lord at the start of the shooting phase, can run and charge in the same turn." That is not an ongoing effect.
Much like how 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 in the unit gets +1A until the end of the phase") is not an Ongoing Effect.

nekooni wrote:
But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.

Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Reading this again you're actually even further off track than I'd been giving you all credit for.

I hope this isn't the only spot you can point to for your "benefit" word, because this section isn't even about the application of special rules.
This section describes what happens when a unit is the target of an effect. The "target". Someone else cast a spell on them or fired a shot on them! It's got nothing to do with Special Rules, or when/how/to whom they are conferred!

And for the record - the operative words in this section are "target" and "effect" - not "benefit".
The word "benefit" is still irrelevent because that's just one suggestion among a couple of ways you might incidentally feel about those effects. It doesn't matter if the effect is beneficial, harmful, or indifferent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh snap! You beat me to it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you haven't answered my question about other USRs, and ICs joining other units.

If my Wolf Lord joins a unit of Blood Claws, by your arguement he should get Rage, correct?
And any Inquisitor I attach to my army will gain the Counter Attack special rule when he joins one of my Space Wolf units, too, I assume

Afterall, "all rules"

No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up

Its a very simple difference between a rule explicitly stating the UNIT gains it, and USRs on a datasheet which are given to the models ON the datasheet.

Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up

An IC who joins a unit becomes part of the unit for ALLRULES purposes. The BLood Claws unit has that rule, so the IC who joins it has that rule by your arguement - keep up yourself.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.

Didn't insult you this time champ - keep up.

The only annoying thing here is that you keep claiming things that are inherently false, and you won't listen to reason

Rasko wrote:
[Actually, it is important to note that things like "For Glory, For Russ", Skyhammer's "First the Fire, then the Blade", and Talon Strike Force's "... On Target" are not ongoing effects.
Ongoing Effects are clearly defined as a lasting effect.

While these are 'effects' of a special rule, in that they are what the rule does, they do not fall under the Ongoing Effects category.
"Any unit within 12" of the Wolf Lord at the start of the shooting phase, can run and charge in the same turn." That is not an ongoing effect.
Much like how 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 in the unit gets +1A until the end of the phase") is not an Ongoing Effect.

But how exactly do you identify whether or not an effect is an "Ongoing Effect" or not? And how is an effect that keeps going until the end of a phase not an ongoing effect? Counter-Attack itself is a Special Rule, sure - but if "a unit with at least one model with this SR that gets charged" (trigger condition), "every model with the Counter-Attack SR" (who is affected?) "gets +1A until the end of the phase" (the effect that is active for a specified time frame).

Now the exact same logic can be applied to both Blind AND e.g. "... On Target".

"Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule" (trigger condition) must take an
Initiative test at the end of the current phase."If the Initiative test is failed," (trigger condition #2) "all
models in the unit" (who is affected?) "are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their
next turn." (the effect that is active for a specified time frame)



First the Fire, then the Blade from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force:
"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve" (both trigger condition and timeframe), "the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force"(who is affected) "have the Relentless special rule." (the effect, timeframe is given in the beginning of the sentence).



And Shock Assault from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force:
"Tactical Squads from this formation" (who?) can Run and then shoot (what?) on the same turn they disembark from their Drop Pods (trigger condition & timeframe)

And ... On Target from the Shadowstrike Kill Team:
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" (who) can charge (what?) on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike (trigger condition & timeframe)

And last but certainly not least: Stubborn from the BRB:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" (trigger condition), "they" (who? in this case: "the unit") ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.(what?)

Stubborns effect doesn't have a timeframe attached to it - it is simply "now" - therefore it wouldn't fall under the ongoing effects. All the others have a timeframe and are ongoing.

karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No,because the rule for Rage requires models to have the rule. Keep up

An IC who joins a unit becomes part of the unit for ALLRULES purposes. The BLood Claws unit has that rule, so the IC who joins it has that rule by your arguement - keep up yourself.

Oops, giess you cannot read the datasheets then. WHich specify they are the rules given to the models in the unit listed. So the MODELS have the rule, not the unit. Try again, "champ"

And is different to a rule such as first the fire, death pack etc whcih appl to the UNIT and give the UNIT a benefit. Such as charging and running. You know, those things that UNITS do in the actual written, non-karlosovic40k rules?

karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its also very annoying that your insulting ways continue. Back on dont-bother--with list you go.

Didn't insult you this time champ - keep up.

The only annoying thing here is that you keep claiming things that are inherently false, and you won't listen to reason

No, I wont listen to your made up out of whole cloth gak. That isnt "not listening to reason", thats "having a good idea what the rle actually says, as opposed to the rubbish you keep on claiming is RAW"

Last warning for this thread.

There's no need for the insults or digs.

 karlosovic wrote:

nekooni wrote:
But it is - it's an ongoing beneficial effect, and we know how to deal with those.

Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Reading this again you're actually even further off track than I'd been giving you all credit for.

I hope this isn't the only spot you can point to for your "benefit" word, because this section isn't even about the application of special rules.
This section describes what happens when a unit is the target of an effect. The "target". Someone else cast a spell on them or fired a shot on them! It's got nothing to do with Special Rules, or when/how/to whom they are conferred!

And for the record - the operative words in this section are "target" and "effect" - not "benefit".
The word "benefit" is still irrelevent because that's just one suggestion among a couple of ways you might incidentally feel about those effects. It doesn't matter if the effect is beneficial, harmful, or indifferent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh snap! You beat me to it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you haven't answered my question about other USRs, and ICs joining other units.

If my Wolf Lord joins a unit of Blood Claws, by your arguement he should get Rage, correct?
And any Inquisitor I attach to my army will gain the Counter Attack special rule when he joins one of my Space Wolf units, too, I assume

Afterall, "all rules"

Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.

So even if an IC that joins the unit is part of the unit for all intents and purposes, he will never, ever be a Blood Claw, Swift Claw, or Sky Claw.

Dare I say,.......try and keep up?

@nekooni.

I remember now.

My problem is that there are two rules of how IC's are handled:

1) The more generic one of "for all rules purposes"
2) The more specific one of "special rules do not confer unless specified to do so"

They don't really work well together in many cases and cause weird situations such as after deep strike where the unit has the permission to charge, and the IC just tags along.

I would not allow special rules to be "conferred", "applied" etc unless they really specified that.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.

Oops, I appologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?

That still only negates one specific example though. There was another one with it, not to mention a boat load of more structured arguement that is unanswered



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, I wont listen to your made up out of whole cloth gak. That isnt "not listening to reason", thats "having a good idea what the rle actually says, as opposed to the rubbish you keep on claiming is RAW"

Direct rules quotes are not "claims of RAW", and now you're becoming quite offensive. You should try to follow the forum rules, please

While you're at it, try to find something in the rules to refute my arguments other than just calling me a liar.... it's less passionate, but makes for a more solid case

 karlosovic wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Might want to check the SW errata that brings Blood Claws in line with Sky Claws and Swift Claws that has the Rage special rule called out specifically for Blood, Sky, and Swift Claws.

Oops, I appologise, I seem to have missed that update, been a while since I renewed my epub versions.... that *does* pick up the errata, I hope?

That still only negates one specific example though. There was another one with it, not to mention a boat load of more structured arguement that is unanswered

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808 pretty much covers your argument I think, otherwise please point me to your argument again and I'll try to respond to that specifically.

Karlosivic - your argument was refuted however. Because your argument relies on the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word. You then claim that doesn't matter, as that is "rules lawyering" (in a rules discussion thread, who'd have thought?) but csnnot actually answer the refutation.

Post when you can.

nekooni wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808 pretty much covers your argument I think, otherwise please point me to your argument again and I'll try to respond to that specifically.

nekooni wrote:
And Shock Assault from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force:
"Tactical Squads from this formation" (who?) can Run and then shoot (what?) on the same turn they disembark from their Drop Pods (trigger condition & timeframe)

And ... On Target from the Shadowstrike Kill Team:
"Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation" (who) can charge (what?) on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike (trigger condition & timeframe)

And last but certainly not least: Stubborn from the BRB:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" (trigger condition), "they" (who? in this case: "the unit") ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.(what?)

Stubborns effect doesn't have a timeframe attached to it - it is simply "now" - therefore it wouldn't fall under the ongoing effects. All the others have a timeframe and are ongoing.

Ok, I can see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your decision that "on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" is considered a "timeframe" but "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" is simply "now". It's a single game-phase exemption from one of the core game rules, so it's instantaneous. The rules for Blind are considered an ongoing effect because it lasts until the end of the affected unit's next turn, which could potentially endure through 3 player turns (if the effect happened as an overwatched shot).

While I stand by my interpretation of that wording, I will agree that it's less than Earth-shattering in its clarity

Luckily for the question at hand, it has absolutely no bearing on our current topic - because duration of an effect (or even what counts as an effect) is not in question.


The simple fact is, there is a very specific rule that states

 karlosovic wrote:

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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

So we've established a clear rule that an IC does not gain/benefit/have-conferred/inherit (or any other word someone might introduce) special rules from a "Unit" unless that rule says otherwise

So.... who has the rule, and does it specify an allowance for extras?

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

The clear answer is that - "units from the Deathpack" have the rule

What are the "units from the Deathpack?

1 Wolf Lord
1 unit of Grey Hunters
1 unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry

Is Rune priest in the formation? No

Therefore he does not have the rule (inherently)

But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?

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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!

So.......does the special rule say so?

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so


So, to conclude.....
NO, he can't have the rule,


(and it's got nothing to do with durations)










Automatically Appended Next Post:
While I was drafting a structured argement, this guy posted something

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Karlosivic - your argument was refuted however. Because your argument relies on the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word. You then claim that doesn't matter, as that is "rules lawyering" (in a rules discussion thread, who'd have thought?) but csnnot actually answer the refutation.

Post when you can.

First of all, please spell/grammar check. It gets tiring trying to decipher your badly written posts

Secondly, ......... what?
WTF are you talking about "confer doesn't mean confer" ?
And what "refutation" are you suggesting I didn't answer?

The only "refutations" I've seen from you amount basically to "liar liar, pants on fire" without any argument, fact, or (heaven forbid) rules quotation to back it up


Please stop with your insulting suggestions that I'm a liar and try to address the actual points I have presented with something amounting to sense, and preferably with some reference to the actual rules




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
the word "confer" not actually meaning confer, but benefit or something else other than the actual word

Wait, what ?!?! *YOU* are the guy that keeps trying to introduce the word "benefit", not me

No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important. WHen it is. You then use other words in place of confer, with a different meaning, that coincidentally support your stance

I would love to know in which grammar checker you found "?!?!" in. PLease enlighten us.

Or not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important. WHen it is. You then use other words in place of confer, with a different meaning, that coincidentally support your stance

I would love to know in which grammar checker you found "?!?!" in. PLease enlighten us.

Or not.

Actually the combined exclamation and question mark is a way of writing a deprecated punctuation mark called an "interrobang" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang

Realistically, that was a petty argument even before I provided an actual reference
Karma


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you are trying to say the word "confer" isnt actually important.

The actual word "confer" isn't important, as I've explained several times.
The way they've used it is important

The actual word isn't important, because the same rule where they use the word points to another rule that doesn't use the word (or the word "benefit" that you love so much)

Everything else we've been over before (actually we've been over that too but you insist on trying to make a distinction between these non-operative words)


The fact is - the English language provides room to say the same thing in various ways, not using the same words, but meaning the same thing. Unless a word is specifically defined as having a particular meaning for the scope of a document, that word does not become a "key word" that you can use to lawyer your own meanings. The Warhammer 40,000 rulebook clearly indicates that certain words have a defined meaning within those rules, and provides a clear format for identifying words that have such a defined meaning.

The words you are pointing to do not have that distinction. Find some that do. Then tie those words to a rule that is NOT overruled elsewhere by a more specific rule, and you might just find yourself on the way to building a case

 karlosovic wrote:
Ok, I can see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your decision that "on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" is considered a "timeframe" but "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" is simply "now". It's a single game-phase exemption from one of the core game rules, so it's instantaneous. The rules for Blind are considered an ongoing effect because it lasts until the end of the affected unit's next turn, which could potentially endure through 3 player turns (if the effect happened as an overwatched shot).

"on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike" means one full turn as duration. Stubborn only produces an effect for a single situation - I have to take a pinning test - and is immediately resolved, there's no duration to that effect. The Special Rules themself are obviously constantly "active". If you'd remove the Assault Marines from the table and let them arrive from DS again, they would gain another turn of that effect.

Luckily for the question at hand, it has absolutely no bearing on our current topic - because duration of an effect (or even what counts as an effect) is not in question.

nekooni wrote:
To me any effect with a duration is an ongoing effect and therefore treated by the corresponding rule section within the IC rules, and those result in it being shared with the IC if the IC was part of the unit when the trigger condition was evoked, for the defined time - e.g. "the first turn".

I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".

Ah so two punctuation marks is fine? I knew of that nonstandard Mark , just given your insistence on correct grammar it seemed odd

So confer isn't important? Despite that being the operative word? Interesting argument. Poor, but interesting.

karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?

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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!

So.......does the special rule say so?

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so

I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

Stubborn lists two requirements for its target: it carries at least one model with the rule, and taking a Morale check or Pinning Test.

Stubborn then states, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers". Who are "they"? The unit which has completed their requirements. No fancy Rosetta stone/secret decoder rings needed, just a simple requirement for the unit and for the unit to be affected with no notes of exception.

So, then with that in mind, let us review the rule in question:

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

So, a list of requirements for the unit to complete, then provides the unit which has completed their requirements to receive the benefits. No exceptions noted other than in the initial requirements.

Sounds like it is just as specific as Stubborn, so IC is included.

EnTyme wrote:I'm hesitant to rejoin this argument, but I feel like you're using an awfully broad definition of "ongoing effect" here. By that definition, I could argue that an unsaved wound and the subsequent removal from play is an ongoing effect with a duration of "until the end of the game".

Well part of it is that the the "Ongoing Effects" is only part of what it is talking about.

Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example.

This portion here is pointing out that the IC is to be considered part of the unit when it receives an effect, including special rules. It does not even note that this effect be a long term one. The rest of the paragraph then talks about the effect continuing on even after the IC and unit are separated. In order for the effect to continue on after they separate, it must first be included in the effect in the first place.

So ignoring this is just being contrary.

Charistoph wrote:

karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?

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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!

So.......does the special rule say so?

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so

I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?

Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.

So the rule minus the supplemental example is this . . .

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

What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?

Answer: "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"

The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

karlosovic wrote:But, could he then gain the rule by joining a unit?

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...the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Ah ha! He could get the special rule from the unit if the special rule says so!!!!!!!

So.......does the special rule say so?

For Glory, For Russ!:
The Wolf Lord, and any units from the Deathpack that are within 12" of him at the start of your shooting phase, can either shoot and re-roll to hit rolls of 1, or Run and still be able to charge in the same turn. Different units can choose different options, so one unit could Run and charge, while another re-rolls hit rolls of 1.

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there that even looks like it might encompass extras, so....
Bugger, no, it doesn't say so

I noticed that you skipped over the exception in your quote. It just needs to specify as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Let's review Stubborn, shall we?

Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.

So the rule minus the supplemental example is this . . .

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

What are the requirements for a unit's special rule to confer upon the Independent Character?

Answer: "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"

The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.

It is an example, but does not encompass all possible ways that a unit special rule can be given to an IC. Stubborn is listed in the BRB under what is basically the generic Special Rules most commonly encountered. It cannot take into account all rules in all codices that are unique to specific units that do not use one of the generic Special Rules.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.

Just because it is in parentheses does not mean you get to ignore it. Parentheses do not remove context, they just set it aside, especially if it is outside the sentence's structure. You used to rely on Stubborn so much, but once I proved it doesn't say what you think it says, you seek to ignore it. You have to obey the grammar of the sentences.

col_impact wrote:
The BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that satisfies that requirement.

And as I demonstrated in the portion you clipped out For Glory, For Russ satisfies the conditions just as much as Stubborn does. Why clip it out? Too much to handle?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. "As in Stubborn" is in parentheses so it is provided as an example and supplemental information to the rule expressed outside of the parentheses. You have to obey the grammar of the sentence.

Just because it is in parentheses does not mean you get to ignore it. Parentheses do not remove context, they just set it aside, especially if it is outside the sentence's structure. You used to rely on Stubborn so much, but once I proved it doesn't say what you think it says, you seek to ignore it. You have to obey the grammar of the sentences.

If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.

The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.

col_impact wrote:
If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.

If it is a supplement to the rule, it is still part of the rule.

col_impact wrote:
The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.

And yet, you still ignore everything else, including the language and grammar of the rule itself AND its example. Hypocrite.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If it's in parentheses it is a supplement to the rule and not the rule.

If it is a supplement to the rule, it is still part of the rule.

col_impact wrote:
The BRB tells us that in order for the special rule to be conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) there must be something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

Stubborn is just an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). In the Stubborn rule itself is something that specifically confers the rule from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).

You have made the bizarre statement that Stubborn does not actually confer which directly contradicts the BRB.

And yet, you still ignore everything else, including the language and grammar of the rule itself AND its example. Hypocrite.

Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.

One of the things you are required to do is to treat the information in the parentheses of the IC Special Rules rule as supplemental information and the stuff that is outside the parentheses as the rule.


This is the rule . . .

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


This is the supplemental information . . .

"(as in Stubborn)"


So the BRB tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa.

col_impact wrote:
Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.

I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. I am no hypocrite. You are the one who has butchered the grammar of the IC Special Rules rule to the point where you make the bizarre claim that Stubborn does not actually confer. This directly contradicts the BRB which points to Stubborn as an example of a special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it confers the rule from the unit to the IC and vice versa. You have some serious revising of your argument to do. It's a butchered mess of an argument.

I have butchered nothing. I have referenced things properly. Your claims of grammar abuse are pointless and unfounded save for your own personal views. I have no obligation to use your personal and unsupported views on grammar to demonstrate my case. You willfully have ignored rules and clauses when they are put in print when they do not support your case, especially when proven to not support your case. This is not Rules As Written, only HYWPI.

As I have shown your argument directly contradicts the rules as they are written. Your retort is that you don't have to follow grammar or the rules. The quality of your retort files your argument under house rules.

My argument adheres to the rules as they are written.