Switch Theme:

Wulfen Special Rules and Joining ICs  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Reading through the rules for the new Wulfen unit, I was struck by the wording of the Bounding Lope rule. It states that the unit can Run and Charge with no restriction to the entire unit's composition needing this rule. Am I correct in believing that ICs that join the unit can also Run and Charge with them?

The Death Frenzy rule calls out models in the unit. As an IC is not originally a model from the unit I would believe this rule doesn't carry over to any joining ICs.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570/678568.page
20p's of discussing the same thing. Whether or not effects that call out "units" in special rules effect IC's. Bounding Leap falls into this category.

Like most things in 40k. It is not clear. ITC/NOVA ruled it doesn't. ETC ruled it does. Make of that what you will, there is no consensus.
In friendly games, speak to your opponent so they can play under the same rules.

For Death Frenzy though, if it calls out models in the unit, it would work. I don't have the campaign book, so I can't say with authority.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 02:12:13


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Tropic Thunder wrote:
The Death Frenzy rule calls out models in the unit. As an IC is not originally a model from the unit I would believe this rule doesn't carry over to any joining ICs.

If the Independent Character joined the unit, he would qualify as a model in the unit. It would need to say something along the lines of "... a model in the unit with this special rule..." for it to disallow its use by the Independent Character without a shadow of a doubt.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Huh. I had that completely opposite, it seems.

I'll take the advice of asking my opponent what s/he thinks before games, or asking a TO before a tourney.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rasko wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570/678568.page
20p's of discussing the same thing. Whether or not effects that call out "units" in special rules effect IC's. Bounding Leap falls into this category.


After that thread closed, I came across a rule in the BRB that allows an IC (who follows the rules for characters) to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules which grant units the ability to charge in situations where they are normally disallowed from charging.

Spoiler:
Some units are disallowed from charging. Common reasons a unit is not allowed to declare a charge include:
• The unit is already locked in close combat.
The unit Ran in the Shooting phase.


Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.


Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.


Spoiler:
If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.


The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

This leads to some odd exploits like deep striking an IC so that he attaches to a unit that is going to assault that turn and being able to assault right along with them.

However, even though the IC can charge, I think he will slow the unit down so that the unit doesn't get to re-roll a failed charge (similar to units losing fleet charge re-roll when ICs without fleet are attached).

Spoiler:
If a unit has models that roll differently for their charge range, the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model.


Even though the IC did not need to benefit from Bounding Leap to be able to charge along with the unit, not having the benefit of Bounding Leap will mean the whole unit loses its charge re-roll.


Rasko wrote:
For Death Frenzy though, if it calls out models in the unit, it would work. I don't have the campaign book, so I can't say with authority.


Correct. "Models in the unit" logically incorporates attached models (ie ICs) and would satisfy "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" part of the IC Special Rules rule.

Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 05:28:18


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.

But we've been over that plenty of times already.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.

But we've been over that plenty of times already.


This is a permissive ruleset.

Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.

However, per the Characters and Assault rule the IC is allowed to charge along with the unit.

So the IC gets to charge along with the unit but the unit loses the re-roll of the charge distance since the IC does not benefit from Bounding Leap as the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model, which in this case is a model with a single roll for the charge distance.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 06:56:40


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
The IC would not benefit from the effect of Bounding Leap per se but it would still be able to charge along with the unit anyway, since the IC doesn't actually need Bounding Leap to charge along with the unit, per the Characters and Assault rule.

This would only be the case if the IC was not considered part of the unit.

But we've been over that plenty of times already.

This is a permissive ruleset.

Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.

However, per the Characters and Assault rule it is allowed to charge along with the unit.

So the IC gets to charge but does not get the re-roll of the charge distance.

Don't be misquoting the rule now.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not GET the Bounding Leap rule. It does not exclude the IC from the unit, though, when a rule affects it. Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions.

It is only your assumption that it is saying the conferring the benefit is forbidden, as you think that is the "spirit" of that rule.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:

Don't be misquoting the rule now.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, the IC does not GET the Bounding Leap rule. It does not exclude the IC from the unit, though, when a rule affects it. Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions.

It is only your assumption that it is saying the conferring the benefit is forbidden, as you think that is the "spirit" of that rule.


I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.

Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.

Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".

What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 09:23:22


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




col_impact wrote:
After that thread closed, I came across a rule in the BRB that allows an IC (who follows the rules for characters) to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules which grant units the ability to charge in situations where they are normally disallowed from charging.

I don't think that would allow the IC to sidestep the IC Special Rules and charge. There is an important sentence before the key quote.
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit."

If the Wulfen want to just run, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to just charge, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to run and charge, now it is doing so through the use of a special rule via Bounding Lope.

And then it circles back to the 20p thread, of which there is no need to get into.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 10:38:39


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.

Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.

Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".

What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?

And that is what I meant by " Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions."

You are using the permission of how Stubborn works to add restrictions to the list. "Confer" is used in relation to "Special Rules", not their benefits. By translating "confer their special rules" to mean "confer the benefits of their special rules", you are not going by RAW, but by the spirit of what you think it means.

The IC Special Rules section allows a rule to bypass the restriction against conferring the special rules by conferring the benefit ala Stubborn. This does not mean that the rest of the sentence is restricting it. There are already rules against a model benefiting from a rule they do not have, as presented in the introduction of the Special Rules Section. By blocking the transfer of Special Rules, the blocking of their benefit is already assured. UNLESS it specifically states otherwise as in Stubborn.

In addition, Death Frenzy follows Blind's phraseology more than Stubborn. But Stubborn operates only on a unit level interaction, i.e. Morale Checks and Pinning Tests, while Death Frenzy operates on a model's interaction, i.e. Piling In and Attacking.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Fully-charged Electropriest






'Ere we go
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
I adhere to the usage of 'confer' in the rule book.

Unless you can show that in the case of Stubborn the IC actually has the Stubborn rule "bestowed" over to him, you are trying to use 'confer' in a way that the BRB doesn't.

Per the case of Stubborn the BRB uses 'confer' to mean "extend the effect of the special rule on" and not "bestow".

What gives you permission to use 'confer' in a way that contradicts how the BRB uses it?

And that is what I meant by " Do not take a method of permission to mean the addition of restrictions."

You are using the permission of how Stubborn works to add restrictions to the list. "Confer" is used in relation to "Special Rules", not their benefits. By translating "confer their special rules" to mean "confer the benefits of their special rules", you are not going by RAW, but by the spirit of what you think it means.

The IC Special Rules section allows a rule to bypass the restriction against conferring the special rules by conferring the benefit ala Stubborn. This does not mean that the rest of the sentence is restricting it. There are already rules against a model benefiting from a rule they do not have, as presented in the introduction of the Special Rules Section. By blocking the transfer of Special Rules, the blocking of their benefit is already assured. UNLESS it specifically states otherwise as in Stubborn.

In addition, Death Frenzy follows Blind's phraseology more than Stubborn. But Stubborn operates only on a unit level interaction, i.e. Morale Checks and Pinning Tests, while Death Frenzy operates on a model's interaction, i.e. Piling In and Attacking.


No.

You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.

We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.

First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.

Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".

So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.

And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.

This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.

The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.

So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It is against forum rules to use the dictionary as a rules resource over the BRB and it is against RAW.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rasko wrote:
col_impact wrote:
After that thread closed, I came across a rule in the BRB that allows an IC (who follows the rules for characters) to sidestep the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules which grant units the ability to charge in situations where they are normally disallowed from charging.

I don't think that would allow the IC to sidestep the IC Special Rules and charge. There is an important sentence before the key quote.
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit."

If the Wulfen want to just run, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to just charge, it is following the normal rules of the game/unit.
If the Wulfen want to run and charge, now it is doing so through the use of a special rule via Bounding Lope.

And then it circles back to the 20p thread, of which there is no need to get into.


I see what you are saying. At this point it will come down to a rule by rule analysis to see what level of rule (Basic or Advanced) is actually still in play. I anticipated a discussion along those lines and so I provided a chain of permission in my thread above already.

As you can see, it's a Basic rule that takes away the unit's ability to charge if they have run. And it's a Basic rule that allows the Character to charge if the unit he is in is charging. You have two rules acting at the same Basic level to ultimately enable a Character to charge if he is in a unit that can charge.

I think my analysis is correct, but if you can offer a more definitive analysis I would love to hear it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/21 23:08:02


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yup, another repeat thread.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
No.

You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.

We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.

Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.

And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.

col_impact wrote:
First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.

Stubborn does not use "confer", so that explanation is obviously not RAW.

Stubborn also does not "confer" any special rule at all. It provides a benefit to the unit.

In addition, the IC Special Rules do not use Stubborn as an example of how NOT to confer, but rather how to confer. You are trying to use permission of allowance to define the restriction.

col_impact wrote:
Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".

Considering that the rule states the IC counts as being part of the unit, one could make a reasonable assumption from that point that the IC gets the rules the unit has. IC Special Rules is what puts a stop to this.

And as pointed out, there is already a point made that the standard position of a rule is that it only affects the possessing model, so denying the mix here would not make sense.

In addition, it is established that rules that affect the unit do include the IC unless otherwise noted. There is a whole section on rules that extend beyond the time the IC is joined to the unit. If they were not already connected, continuing the effect would be pointless and would require methods noting how they DO include the IC with the unit.

col_impact wrote:
So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.

I use them as RAW, actually. In this case, you are using a spirit of a definition used to allow the mix to define the restriction against mixing.

col_impact wrote:
And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.

Incorrect. The standard rule is that special rules do not get mixed between unit and IC. Stubborn is used as a reference point on how to mix the special rules, which means it is an exception to the restriction. Stubborn does this by placing its benefit on the unit after the unit meets its requirements, and the IC is part of the unit.

Not that you'll pay proper attention to any of this.

col_impact wrote:
This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.

The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.

Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.

And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.

"Assault" is provided a definition. "Deployment" is provided a definition. "Deployed" and "confer" are not, but they are used in certain ways. Conferring, however, is not ever actually used in such a way as to assume anything other than the OED/MW definition.

col_impact wrote:
So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It does it by not actually conferring the rule, but by placing a benefit on a unit that includes the IC. That is literally the only thing it actually says. No spirit of the definition is used. No special definition is used (aside from redefining Stubborn). No special phrase noted as being set aside as magical permission. Just the actual words using provided by the English language.

Unfortunately, Bounding Lope does not address its benefits like Stubborn, so using it as a standard is pointless, unless you look at it as I addressed it above. Instead, it's language more matches Blind, which IS noted as an example of a special rule's effects being applied to an IC in the affected unit.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Ok guys, I am not arguing the 'effects that call out "units" in special rules' argument.
This is strictly from the stance that IC's don't benefit for the purposes of detemining if it can bypass the IC's Special Rules argument entirely.
Please do not mistake my intentions with this post.
col_impact wrote:
I see what you are saying. At this point it will come down to a rule by rule analysis to see what level of rule (Basic or Advanced) is actually still in play. I anticipated a discussion along those lines and so I provided a chain of permission in my thread above already.

As you can see, it's a Basic rule that takes away the unit's ability to charge if they have run. And it's a Basic rule that allows the Character to charge if the unit he is in is charging. You have two rules acting at the same Basic level to ultimately enable a Character to charge if he is in a unit that can charge.

I think my analysis is correct, but if you can offer a more definitive analysis I would love to hear it.

Yea, you are right. They are both Basic Rules. One gives the ability to charge if the unit charges and one takes away the ability to charge if the unit has run.
I think the most important thing is that you have to go in sequence.

(Over-arching Game Basic Rules)
•The Unit can't charge if it ran in the shooting phase.
•If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.
(Order of Events)
>Wulfen Unit runs in the shooting phase. Wulfen can't charge. IC can't charge. A Basic Rule has taken away the ability to charge.
>Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running. Wulfen can charge via Bounding Lope. IC can't charge.
>Wulfen Unit can't charge as it has a model in the unit that can't charge.

I think the key thing to note in this sequence is
•If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit.
The unit has not actually charged into combat, therefore "dragging" the IC. This rule never actually has the chance to be enacted.
All the models in the unit still have to have the ability to charge before the IC can charge with the unit.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/22 00:04:27


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Eye of Terror

Repeat thread is repeat thread.

My blog... http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com

Facebook...
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est/

DT:60+S++++G++++M+++B+++I+++Pw40k89/d#++D+++A++++/eWD150R++++T(T)DM+++ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoiler:
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
No.

You are adhering to a dictionary meaning of 'confer' rather than adhering to the way the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It is against the rules of this forum to use the dictionary as a rules source and it is against RAW to use a dictionary over the BRB.

We know for certain that the BRB uses 'confer' to mean 'extend the effect of'.

Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.

And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.

col_impact wrote:
First, that is how confer is used in the case of Stubborn and the BRB uses Stubborn as an explicit case for how special rules are 'conferred'. "As in Stubborn" is the definitive way special rules are 'conferred'.

Stubborn does not use "confer", so that explanation is obviously not RAW.

Stubborn also does not "confer" any special rule at all. It provides a benefit to the unit.

In addition, the IC Special Rules do not use Stubborn as an example of how NOT to confer, but rather how to confer. You are trying to use permission of allowance to define the restriction.

col_impact wrote:
Second, there are no instances of any special rules ever being "bestowed" on an IC through joining a unit or vice versa. "Bestow" would mean a permanent gifting of the special rule that would entail the IC still having the special rule after detaching, since there are no rules for revoking special rules once "granted" or "bestowed".

Considering that the rule states the IC counts as being part of the unit, one could make a reasonable assumption from that point that the IC gets the rules the unit has. IC Special Rules is what puts a stop to this.

And as pointed out, there is already a point made that the standard position of a rule is that it only affects the possessing model, so denying the mix here would not make sense.

In addition, it is established that rules that affect the unit do include the IC unless otherwise noted. There is a whole section on rules that extend beyond the time the IC is joined to the unit. If they were not already connected, continuing the effect would be pointless and would require methods noting how they DO include the IC with the unit.

col_impact wrote:
So you are trying to prop up a dictionary definition of 'confer' over the way the BRB uses 'confer' in order to self-destruct the IC Special Rules rule so that the rule never comes into play since no special rule is ever "bestowed" onto the IC.

I use them as RAW, actually. In this case, you are using a spirit of a definition used to allow the mix to define the restriction against mixing.

col_impact wrote:
And you are trying to suggest the case of Stubborn is an exceptional case and not the standard case for how special rules are conferred. This is suggesting that the BRB is lying to all of us when it directs us to hold to the case of Stubborn as the way in which special rules are conferred.

Incorrect. The standard rule is that special rules do not get mixed between unit and IC. Stubborn is used as a reference point on how to mix the special rules, which means it is an exception to the restriction. Stubborn does this by placing its benefit on the unit after the unit meets its requirements, and the IC is part of the unit.

Not that you'll pay proper attention to any of this.

col_impact wrote:
This is a game. The meanings of words do not correspond exactly to their real word counterparts. There are many words in 40k that deviate significantly from real-world usage since we are dealing with a very abstract depiction of a fantastic reality that is structured by game logic rather than real world logic.

The dictionary is not a rules resource that trumps the BRB. "Assault" is not defined in the BRB. If you tried to adhere to a dictionary meaning of "assault" over the BRB use of assault you will get yourself in legal trouble quickly when you go to play a game of 40k.

Do you have an actual quote from the rulebook to establish this? If not, then it is not RAW, just an assumption, or going by the "spirit" of what is said, which you claim you do not do in other threads.

And the tenet is:
"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out. "

Nothing in the rulebook is stated about not using dictionary terms found the rulebook except where the rulebook actually provides another definition.

"Assault" is provided a definition. "Deployment" is provided a definition. "Deployed" and "confer" are not, but they are used in certain ways. Conferring, however, is not ever actually used in such a way as to assume anything other than the OED/MW definition.

col_impact wrote:
So unless you can show how Stubborn is conferred by being bestowed on the IC you are in the untenable position of claiming the BRB is lying to us. The dictionary definition of 'confer' which you are trying to force on the rule is in direct contradiction to how the BRB actually uses 'confer'.

It does it by not actually conferring the rule, but by placing a benefit on a unit that includes the IC. That is literally the only thing it actually says. No spirit of the definition is used. No special definition is used (aside from redefining Stubborn). No special phrase noted as being set aside as magical permission. Just the actual words using provided by the English language.

Unfortunately, Bounding Lope does not address its benefits like Stubborn, so using it as a standard is pointless, unless you look at it as I addressed it above. Instead, it's language more matches Blind, which IS noted as an example of a special rule's effects being applied to an IC in the affected unit.


The word dictionary is not mentioned at all in the BRB at all.

So any claim of being able to use a dictionary as a source of rules can be nothing other than a house rule on your part. Dictionary is not part of the rules of 40k.



40k is free to use words in ways different than the real world. There is no definition of "shooting" in 40k. Shooting in 40k involves dice and charts and templates and blasts which has nothing to do with real word shooting. Words take on a different meaning as they are applied in this abstract game.

"Confer" is one such term. It's somewhat similar to its real-world definition but we must sort out what confer actually means in the game of 40k by what the rules tell us to do in order to confer.

The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:

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


So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )

So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.

So . . .

Bounding Lope lacks what Stubborn has and so it does not extend its effect onto attached models (ie ICs).

Death Frenzy does have what Stubborn has and so it does extend its effect onto attached models (is ICs).


However, per the Character and Assaults rule an IC joined to a unit with Bounding Lope is allowed to charge. The unit just loses the ability to re-roll charge distance because of the 'charge at rate of slowest model' Basic rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rasko wrote:

>Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running. Wulfen can charge via Bounding Lope. IC can't charge.


Wulfen Unit wants to charge in the assault phase after running.

"This unit" can charge via Bounding Lope, overriding the basic rule that the unit can't charge if the unit has run.

"This unit" charges.

The IC is a character and (per the basic rule for Characters and Assaults) charges with the unit.



If running somehow meant that the IC could not "move any further" that turn then the charge could be restricted to 0" per this rule but the rules make no mention of any such restriction.

Spoiler:
the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model.


But the permission to charge after running has been lifted for "this unit" and the IC has explicit Basic level character rule permission to charge with the unit and no restriction on further movement.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/22 02:33:00


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:

The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:

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


So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )

So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.

But that means "following the spirit" of what it says, not what it actually says. Something you claim you do not do. Even more so considering that Stubborn never states it confers anything.

So, I will continue to use my dictionary as it is intended to be used, and you keep doing something you claim not to be doing. Have fun convincing people of that.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:

The BRB tell us that Stubborn manages to confer its special rules. Stubborn manages to specifically confer the special rules of the IC onto the unit (and vice-versa). The rules tell us that that conferring is specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
Spoiler:

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


So Stubborn is the exemplar for how conferring is done and what conferring means in the abstract game of 40k where units are abstract entities with special rules. When you examine the Stubborn special rule you can see quite clearly that the Stubborn special rule is not bestowed upon the IC, rather the effect of Stubborn is extended onto the IC by the use of a clause that logically incorporates attached models. ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" )

So we can come to no other conclusion based on RAW that 'confer' in relation to ICs and the units they join means to "extend the effect of" and not "bestow". Stubborn proves this.

But that means "following the spirit" of what it says, not what it actually says. Something you claim you do not do. Even more so considering that Stubborn never states it confers anything.

So, I will continue to use my dictionary as it is intended to be used, and you keep doing something you claim not to be doing. Have fun convincing people of that.


Incorrect. I am adhering exactly to the rules. So I will stick to the rule book and RAW and you can continue using your house rule which allows you to use the dictionary as a rules source.


The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

Stubborn may not mention 'confer' but the BRB explicitly tells us that what the Stubborn rule does is synonymous with specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

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


As we know, we can remove a parentheses and the essential meaning of a sentence is unchanged.

Spoiler:
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 rules says that unless the rule specifically confers the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and/or vice versa) in the rule itself the special rules are not conferred from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).

Adding the parenthesis back in indicates that the BRB considers Stubborn to be satisfying the requirement of specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).

The BRB literally holds up Stubborn as the exemplar to follow to understand how special rules specifically confer from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).

So we examine Stubborn and see quite clearly that the clause which extends the effect of the special to attached models is synonymous with conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).

It's all right there in the rules. You just have to read and adhere to the logic in the rules and adhere to using words in the way the BRB uses them.

RAW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 06:28:40


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

Incorrect. It is stating that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. There is a difference. But who cares, you don't use the dictionary anyway and you haven't defined "stating" as used in the rulebook.

Stubborn says nothing which can be construed as "conferring", "granting", or any other synonym of the word. Stubborn gives nothing to models.

col_impact wrote:
Stubborn may not mention 'confer' but the BRB explicitly tells us that what the Stubborn rule does is synonymous with specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

And that is not going by RAW, but by going by what you believe the spirit of the rule is. Congratulations, you just proved my point.

col_impact wrote:
So we examine Stubborn and see quite clearly that the clause which extends the effect of the special to attached models is synonymous with conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit (and vice versa).

It's all right there in the rules. You just have to read and adhere to the logic in the rules and adhere to using words in the way the BRB uses them.

RAW.

Not RAW. You are extrapolating it out. Now, I find it interesting that you did not quote Stubborn and highlight what is "synonymous" with specifically stating it "is conferring a benefit".

To which point, if we are going to continue extrapolating, then we can easily see that numerous other rules follow the same pattern while not always using the exact same language that is unnecessary to their specific circumstances.

But we've been through all that. You won't listen to it, and people can look up the other thread that has been linked and this has been explained ad nauseum.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 15:30:39


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
The BRB explicitly tells us that Stubborn is specifically conferring the special rules from the IC to the joined unit and vice versa.

Incorrect. It is stating that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. There is a difference. But who cares, you don't use the dictionary anyway and you haven't defined "stating" as used in the rulebook.

Stubborn says nothing which can be construed as "conferring", "granting", or any other synonym of the word. Stubborn gives nothing to models.


So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.

I will take the word of the BRB over yours. The BRB is not lying to us. Stubborn IS specifically stating that it confers in the way that the BRB is using the word "confer". If the BRB uses "confer" in a way that is different than the dictionary meaning, we have to accept it and not reject it. If you reject the BRB you are not following the rules.

The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".

So my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how special rules are conferred. For the BRB, confer means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".

Your argument is not RAW. You reject what the BRB tells us about Stubborn (the BRB is lying to us, Stubborn is not specifically conferring). You force a dictionary definition into the rule and self-destruct the rule so that it never actually does anything. Can you point to any special rule in the whole of 40k which "confers" to the IC when the IC joins a unit in the way that you would have us define "confer"?

I will take the word of the BRB over yours. I will use "confer" in the way that the BRB tells us to use "confer" and accept that Stubborn specifically confers its special rule onto the IC by "conferring" in the way the BRB use the term "conferring" ie by "extending the effect of [the rule]".

   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.

No, do not start making things up and saying I said them. This is what started me calling you a liar in two different threads.

I am saying your position is full of crap and gave the reasons why. I am saying that what you think the BRB is saying is not actually what it literally states.

I did not state that the dictionary has greater authority than the BRB, I said the BRB does not provide a specific written redefinition of "confer" from "grant or bestow" to "grant or bestow the benefit of" anywhere, much less in the Stubborn rule. These are two different concepts.

I have stated in the past that Stubborn gets around this restriction by not granting the special rule, but by directing its benefit to the unit which fulfills its qualifications.

col_impact wrote:
The clause in Stubborn - "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" - logically extends the effect of the Stubborn special rule onto attached models. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using confer to mean "to extend the effect of [a rule]" and not "to bestow [a rule]".

Incorrect. All that phrase means is that it is very liberal in the qualifications as to a unit being able to get it based on the number of models in the unit. It does not actually say anything is given to anyone. "Contains" is not synonymous with "confer", in fact it deals with something already in possession, or having been already "conferred".

The actual verb used after all the qualifying statements and conditions is a permissive verb "ignore". As far as I know, "ignore" has no connection to "confer", "grant", "give" or any other synonym. So, unless you're going to tell me "ignore" now means "grant" (which would be even more ridiculous considering the rest of the sentence), we are back to Stubborn not specifically stating anything about conferring.

col_impact wrote:
So my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how special rules are conferred. For the BRB, confer means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".

Incorrect. It relies on having to extrapolate and infer meanings to something other than it literally states. This is not Rules As Written, but Rules As Assumed, Rules As I Interpret Them, or HYWPI.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 00:44:28


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote:
So your argument is that the BRB is lying to us. The BRB tells us that Stubborn is specifically stating that it confers. And you are saying that Stubborn does not specifically state that it confers. And you hold a dictionary as greater authority over what the BRB is telling you.

No, do not start making things up and saying I said them. This is what started me calling you a liar in two different threads.

I am saying your position is full of crap and gave the reasons why. I am saying that what you think the BRB is saying is not actually what it literally states.

I did not state that the dictionary has greater authority than the BRB, I said the BRB does not provide a specific written redefinition of "confer" from "grant or bestow" to "grant or bestow the benefit of" anywhere, much less in the Stubborn rule. These are two different concepts.

I have stated in the past that Stubborn gets around this restriction by not granting the special rule, but by directing its benefit to the unit which fulfills its qualifications.



The BRB flat out tells us that in the Stubborn rule itself, the special rules of the IC are specifically conferred onto the joined unit and vice versa.
Spoiler:

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


You are either flat out ignoring the BRB or making the claim that the BRB is lying to us. So which is it? Are you ignoring plainly stated rules or are you claiming that the BRB is lying to us? Either way your argument is not RAW.

I will not ignore the rule and what it says like you do. In order for the BRB to not be lying to us, Stubborn must be doing something within the rule itself that the BRB considers to be synonmyous with specifically conferrring the special rules of the IC onto the joined unit and vice versa.

If you examine the Stubborn rule itself you quickly come across a clause ( "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" ) which allows the effect of the Stubborn rule to logically incorporate attached models.

So in order for the BRB to not be lying to us, the BRB must be using 'confer' to mean "to extend the effect of [the rule]". The BRB is of course free to use 'confer' in whatever way it pleases and how the BRB uses 'confer' is all that is important here. We don't care about dictionary meanings. They have no authority here. The exemplar of Stubborn is all that is needed to assert RAW that the BRB uses confer to mean "to extend the effect of [the rule]".

So, once again, my argument is RAW. It accepts what the BRB tells us about Stubborn and how the BRB decides special rules are 'conferred' and what 'conferred' means in the game. For the BRB, 'confer' means "to extend the effect of [a rule]".

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/23 07:48:43


 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

Same crap, nothing new. Already addressed. Review above for my response.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Charistoph wrote:
Same crap, nothing new. Already addressed. Review above for my response.


Yup. You are still being obtuse. You are either flat out ignoring the rules or claiming the BRB is lying to us when it says Stubborn specifically confers its special rule.

Here is the rule which proves you are being obtuse.

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


I have shown RAW that your argument is wholly invalid. You cannot ignore rules or claim the rules are lying and claim you have a RAW argument.
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
Same crap, nothing new. Already addressed. Review above for my response.


Yup. You are still being obtuse. You are either flat out ignoring the rules or claiming the BRB is lying to us when it says Stubborn specifically confers its special rule.

Here is the rule which proves you are being obtuse.

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


I have shown RAW that your argument is wholly invalid. You cannot ignore rules or claim the rules are lying and claim you have a RAW argument.

And you didn't actually address the statements regarding the actual statements being used. Who is the one being obtuse? Do you actually have permission to call someone that? What do you mean by obtuse? The rulebook does not define this.

Therefore, same crap. Nothing new. My response is otherwise as above.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in de
Water-Caste Negotiator





um col_impact actually you proveed nothing the way you read Stubborn.

the only thing you show is that you are not able to apply logic to rules( mixing up conditions with results and such stuff)

By locic Stubborn tells us that if a special rule affects the whole unit a IC is included. this is what Stubborn tells us.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 _ghost_ wrote:
um col_impact actually you proveed nothing the way you read Stubborn.

the only thing you show is that you are not able to apply logic to rules( mixing up conditions with results and such stuff)

By locic Stubborn tells us that if a special rule affects the whole unit a IC is included. this is what Stubborn tells us.


The BRB tells us that the Stubborn special rule satisfies the "specified in the rule itself" clause and therefore, for Stubborn, "the unit’s special rules are conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are conferred upon the unit."

You and Charistophe are simply refusing to deal with what the rule says. That is fine - you can house rule you get to ignore the rule.

I will deal with what the rule says. That's why my argument is RAW.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





Dear MOD: Please shut this down. These few, these dedicated few, should perhaps take their conversation to private messages. Constantly re-hashing the same arguments has now derailed multiple threads.

Alternatively, is there an 'ignore' button?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: