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

col_impact wrote:
ou 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.

Liar. I have dealt with what the rules actually state. When you responded to it, you ignored that portion and reemphasized what you have kept saying. And all you have kept saying is that we don't treat Stubborn as RAW, but as a translation matrix to fit YOUR beliefs.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
ou 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.

Liar. I have dealt with what the rules actually state. When you responded to it, you ignored that portion and reemphasized what you have kept saying. And all you have kept saying is that we don't treat Stubborn as RAW, but as a translation matrix to fit YOUR beliefs.

You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.



The BRB obviously calls Stubborn out as meeting the criterion "specified in the rule itself" so therefore the unit's Stubborn rule is conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s Stubborn rule is conferred upon the unit.

If you refuse to adhere to what the rules state, you cannot claim to have dealt with what the rules state.

So your argument is a house rule that ignores rules. That's fine.

My argument is RAW.

col_impact wrote:You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.

Liar, I have. The fact is you have not addressed it directly using the standards of logic and RAW.

Charistoph wrote:

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.

So, yeah. I have dealt with it using logic and the Rules As Written. Ignoring it doesn't mean I didn't do it. Care to actually respond to this?

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:You haven't dealt with what the rules actually state to the standards of logic and RAW.

Liar, I have. The fact is you have not addressed it directly using the standards of logic and RAW.

Charistoph wrote:

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.

So, yeah. I have dealt with it using logic and the Rules As Written. Ignoring it doesn't mean I didn't do it. Care to actually respond to this?

Sure.

I will walk you through it step by step.

Consider this rule statement.

"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."

Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?

Um... Sorry, everyone. I thought I was asking a benign question.

col_impact wrote:
Sure.

I will walk you through it step by step.

Consider this rule statement.

"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."

Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?

So the answer is actually, "no"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Um... Sorry, everyone. I thought I was asking a benign question.

It's not your fault that people cannot read and people try to stop things like this because "it is too powerful so it must not be legal, here's how".

A lot of the rules can actually work just fine when you take time to read them and are aware of the numerous interactions. Some people just love their complications.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Sure.

I will walk you through it step by step.

Consider this rule statement.

"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."

Would you agree that that statement is declaring that a unit special rule that specifies in the rule itself that it is conferred upon the Independent Character can indeed be conferred upon the Independent Character?

So the answer is actually, "no"?

Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.

col_impact wrote:
Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.

Do not project. You have done nothing but dodge that which forces you to actually look at what you are saying. Instead you just repeat the same things over and over instead.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Ok you are just being willfully obtuse. And in fact the last several of your posts have been nothing but dodges. Looks like my argument is going to remain uncontested.

Do not project. You have done nothing but dodge that which forces you to actually look at what you are saying. Instead you just repeat the same things over and over instead.

Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.

Your argument isnt uncontested. Its been shown to be false - here and in the 20page threa d- its just too much troubole to argue with YOU, specifically.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Um... Sorry, everyone. I thought I was asking a benign question.

Fool! Look at the destruction thou hath wrought!

col_impact wrote:
Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.

Who is dodging now?

I presented a challenge to which you have not actually addressed and awaiting an answer, and reminding you of it. Instead you ignore it hoping I will give up on it.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Um... Sorry, everyone. I thought I was asking a benign question.

HOW DARE YOU ASK A QUESTION OF DAKKA!

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yup. You are still dodging. Your last 9 posts have been without content. That's fine. My argument remains uncontested and well supported by RAW. I accept your concession.

Who is dodging now?

I presented a challenge to which you have not actually addressed and awaiting an answer, and reminding you of it. Instead you ignore it hoping I will give up on it.

Sure.

Let's try this again.

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

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

Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.

col_impact wrote:

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special Rule").

If you care to read it, I've explained why I think the Ongoing Effects section, instead of the Special Rules section, applies to Special Rules like ... On Time, over here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808

 Happyjew wrote:

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

Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.

So to clarify, your position is that the BRB is mistaken (or lying) about Stubborn specifying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special Rule").

If you care to read it, I've explained why I think the Ongoing Effects section, instead of the Special Rules section, applies to Special Rules like ... On Time, over here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808

Just answer the question. It's presented in a very straightforward manner.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.

So to clarify, your position is that the BRB is mistaken (or lying) about Stubborn specifying?

My position is that the rulebook does not actually tell us how Stubborn specifies it is conferred (specifically since it never says in Stubborn that it is conferred, nor does it mention benefits, or ICs). My take, is that rules that affect units, whether or not it specifically calls out the unit, or mentions only one model needing the rule, affects all models in the unit.

col_impact wrote:

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Why do you keep asking a question you surely know is not related to how the opposing argument works? It simply doesn't deal with the argument presented ("The effect is transfered, not the Special Rule").

If you care to read it, I've explained why I think the Ongoing Effects section, instead of the Special Rules section, applies to Special Rules like ... On Time, over here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/680416.page#8478808

Just answer the question. It's presented in a very straightforward manner.

It must be specified in the rule itself. Which is - as I've tried to explain just now - not relevant to the argument presented. The argument presented is that what is being relevant to the discussion are ongoing effects created by a Special rule. I've explained this more in-detail, including how this relates to Stubborn, in the post I've linked.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I just can't get through all of the 20 pages...

The crux of the argument seems to be
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."

One side says that the "unit" is all the specification that the BRB gives you.
One side says that the speciifcation is having a clause. Whether it be "that contains at least one model", "with any models with the", etc. It doesn't matter what exactly it is. It just has to have a clause of some sort.

So taking the idea that the "unit" is the specification that the rule needs for the IC, is there even a special rule where it fails the specification?

"Unless specified in the rule itself the unit’s special rules are not conferred...."
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there must be cases when it fails.
I was looking through the BRB and a couple codices I have, and I couldn't find a single time where it fails.
Doesn't that mean that the specification that the BRB refers to isn't "unit" but a clause?

Conversely, if you take the idea that the clause is the specification. There are instances where a rule fails the specification.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

Unknown. GW never actually clarifies how to confer a special rule. We know Stubborn specifies but it never actually specifies.

So to clarify, your position is that the BRB is mistaken (or lying) about Stubborn specifying?

My position is that the rulebook does not actually tell us how Stubborn specifies it is conferred (specifically since it never says in Stubborn that it is conferred, nor does it mention benefits, or ICs). My take, is that rules that affect units, whether or not it specifically calls out the unit, or mentions only one model needing the rule, affects all models in the unit.

Your positions seems to be that the BRB is mistaken about what it actually does (" the rulebook does not actually tell us"). It's telling us that the specification is there, but it's not actually there when we go to find.

That's one solution. Let's consider others.

How do we resolve the contradiction?

The BRB tells us that Stubborn has what it needs (something "specified in the rule itself") to specifically confer the unit's Stubborn special rule to the IC.

A) The BRB is making a mistake or lying to us. Stubborn does not actually confer. It does something else. The effects of Stubborn get to the IC there but not by actually conferring.

B) The BRB is not mistaken or lying to us. The BRB uses confer to mean something that Stubborn actually specifies in the rule itself. For the BRB, confer means something slightly different than the OED definition.


Only B is the RAW approach.




Of course a side issue comes up in the B solution . . .

A) The BRB is not permitted to redefine English words for game use.

B) The BRB is free to redefine English words for game use.


Only B is the RAW approach.

If the BRB uses words in novel ways you have to accept it. Its the rules as they are written.

col_impact wrote:

Sure.

Let's try this again.

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Still dodging. I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?

Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?

Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.

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.

Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.

The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.

The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.

So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.

The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.

Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?

It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?

Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?

DeathstarMania wrote:
Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?

It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?

Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?

No idea what you are asking, but if you could be more clear I could take a shot at it.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
No idea what you are asking, but if you could be more clear I could take a shot at it.

Thanks. I'm not sure how I would go about searching it. And the 20p thread is a little daunting. Just thought I'd ask, in case there is someone who answered this before.

The crux of the argument seems to be
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."

One side says that the "unit" is all the specification that the BRB gives you.
One side says that the speciifcation is having a clause. Whether it be "that contains at least one model", "with any models with the", etc. It doesn't matter what exactly it is. It just has to have a clause of some sort.

So taking the idea that the "unit" is the specification that the rule needs for the IC, is there even a special rule where it fails the specification?

"Unless specified in the rule itself the unit’s special rules are not conferred...."
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there must be cases when it fails.
I was looking through the BRB and a couple codices I have, and I couldn't find a single time where it fails.
Doesn't that mean that the specification that the BRB refers to isn't "unit" but a clause?

Conversely, if you take the idea that the clause is the specification. There are instances where a rule fails the specification.

It's what I wrote before.
I mean that if the specification is "unit" like one side says, it seems like every special rule in the game would pass.
I was just wondering if there is a rule that I haven't found where it would fail the specification.
Otherwise, why would the book even ask for a specification in the first place?
If there is a pass scenario, there must be a fail scenario. No?

DeathstarMania wrote:
Like I said before, I'm sorry if it's been covered already...
But is there ever a special rule that would fail the specification?

It seems like every single special rule in the game would pass the specification is that was the right one.
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification for it to pass, there should be cases when it fails.
Otherwise, what was even the point in the first place?

Can someone give me a link if this has been discussed already?

In terms of USRs, plenty. In terms of special rules unique to units, also plenty. In terms of Command Benefits and Formations Special Rules, very very few (I can't think of any off hand).

For USRs, look up Fleet, Counter-Attack, and Relentless for different variations. Fleet requires all models to have it for the unit to use it, including joined ICs. Counter-Attack is activated by an action on the unit, but only models with the rule gain the benefit. Relentless is only available to the model with the rule.

For special rules unique to units, it depends on the codex. Which army do you use? I might be able to point some specifics out.

For my Necrons, Deathmarks are a good example of both forms. They have a rule which allows the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike from Reserves during the opponent's turn and then shoot. They also have a rule that allows Deathmarks to Wound on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike. The first would include joined ICs (provided the IC could Deep Strike at all, of course), as it works upon the unit. However, the second is not applied to the unit, only the Deathmarks.

Charistoph wrote:
In terms of USRs, plenty. In terms of special rules unique to units, also plenty. In terms of Command Benefits and Formations Special Rules, very very few (I can't think of any off hand).

For USRs, look up Fleet, Counter-Attack, and Relentless for different variations. Fleet requires all models to have it for the unit to use it, including joined ICs. Counter-Attack is activated by an action on the unit, but only models with the rule gain the benefit. Relentless is only available to the model with the rule.

For special rules unique to units, it depends on the codex. Which army do you use? I might be able to point some specifics out.

For my Necrons, Deathmarks are a good example of both forms. They have a rule which allows the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike from Reserves during the opponent's turn and then shoot. They also have a rule that allows Deathmarks to Wound on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike. The first would include joined ICs (provided the IC could Deep Strike at all, of course), as it works upon the unit. However, the second is not applied to the unit, only the Deathmarks.

I was only talking about special rules that would fall under the "Independent Characters and Special Rules" header.
So I guess Fleet and Counter-Attack would matter in this case.

Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.

Fleet
A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.

I understood one side was saying that the "unit" was the specification wasn't it? How do these fail the specification? I'm a little confused.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Sure.

Let's try this again.

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Still dodging. I was addressing the words actually used in the Stubborn rule. You know, the actual rule that is being used as the example?

Shall we go over Stubborn and parse it out in to its components, which is something that you refuse to actually address?

Let's highlight the references to the unit which the IC counts as a part of, actual references to the Independent Character, the clauses and conditions which are required to activate Stubborn, and what Stubborn does to the its target.

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.

Hmmm, no green in there. All that is actually in there is references to the unit the IC counts as a part of.

The clauses carry just a minimum model requirement of one model in the rule, taking certain tests, and possession of this rule and another. No notations of actually giving anyone anything at this point.

The rule then instructs that "they", as in the unit which is including the IC, get to ignore negative Leadership Values during two of those conditions noted above, and give another rule preferential treatment for the third.

So, yes, indeed. Stubborn just specifies by applying its effect to the unit as a whole once its conditions are met. And most of these formation rules are no less "specific" than Stubborn.

The one condition everyone gets so hopped up on does not help an IC without the rule. Indeed, it only is of any actual use when the IC is the model with the rule and the rest of the unit is not, so it fulfills the "at least one model with this special rule". The unit sure does not need this qualification, as it will have plenty of models with the special rule already if it is to be conferring it to the IC. It also makes it a very liberal application as opposed to the other rules that affect a unit such as Fleet and Deep Strike which require all models to have the rule to work.

First things first Charistoph. Blabbering on about something I did not ask is dodging the question I asked.

To repeat.

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

DeathstarMania wrote:I was only talking about special rules that would fall under the "Independent Characters and Special Rules" header.
So I guess Fleet and Counter-Attack would matter in this case.

Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.

Fleet
A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.

I understood one side was saying that the "unit" was the specification wasn't it? How do these fail the specification? I'm a little confused.

Units and models are two different levels of entities, and you must consider the target and conditions of the rules in question. I will highlight in red that which separates things back out.

Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase.

Counter-Attack only applies its benefit to "every model with the Counter-attack special rule". If an IC does not have it, he does not gain the +1 Attack.

Fleet
A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges.

Fleet requires all models to have Fleet before it can function, and that includes the IC.

I brought up Relentless because it is equally addressed in the IC Special Rules as much as Fearless, Fleet, or Counter-Attack. Relentless does not get conferred to an IC just because he is in a unit full of models with Relentless. Relentless only applies its benefit to those models who actually possess it.

The IC Special Rules section is to make sure that the IC doesn't get the full benefits of being counted as part of the unit, i.e. the rules on the unit's datasheet are not virtually transplanted (or "conferred) to the IC's datasheet just because he is in the unit. The rule itself must address the unit with its benefit, but even then, it may be limited by something else, like Fleet requiring all models to have it, or For Glory, For Russ requiring all models to be withing 12" of the Wolf Lord from that detachment.

col_impact wrote:First things first Charistoph. Blabbering on about something I did not ask is dodging the question I asked.

To repeat.

Consider this rule statement.

"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?

Wow, you really do not pay attention very well, do you? I presented a challenge to this posts ago and you do not respond. And in this case of what you quoted, I already addressed it in that post.

Like I said, you won't face it at all, so you just keep trying to reset the argument to a point you think you have control. I've left this behind long ago.

Charistoph wrote:
I brought up Relentless because it is equally addressed in the IC Special Rules as much as Fearless, Fleet, or Counter-Attack. Relentless does not get conferred to an IC just because he is in a unit full of models with Relentless. Relentless only applies its benefit to those models who actually possess it.

The IC Special Rules section is to make sure that the IC doesn't get the full benefits of being counted as part of the unit, i.e. the rules on the unit's datasheet are not virtually transplanted (or "conferred) to the IC's datasheet just because he is in the unit. The rule itself must address the unit with its benefit, but even then, it may be limited by something else, like Fleet requiring all models to have it, or For Glory, For Russ requiring all models to be withing 12" of the Wolf Lord from that detachment.

Thanks for walking through it with me.
But you are talking about something a little different than what I'm talking about. I'll try to explain clearer.

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

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."
I believe that you guys were saying that the specification that "Unless specified in the rule itself..." asked for, is referring to "unit". Right?

That's how you know, when Counter-Attack says, "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...", it includes the IC.
I believe this is what people were saying so far. Right?
That it is specified in Counter-Attack, exactly the same as Stubborn specified it.

Counter-Attack: If a unit contains...
Fleet: A unit composed...
We know we include the IC because it is specified, as much as Stubborn specifies. I think this was the argument.

I am asking that if the "unit" is actually the specification in "Unless specified in the rule itself...", is there ever a rule that fails the specification?
Logically, if the BRB wants a specification to include the IC, there must be a case where the IC is not included.
I couldn't find a single special rule that failed the specification. So doesn't that mean the specification is not "unit", in Stubborn?
But that it is a clause?