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.
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?
Maybe this will help (maybe it will only confuse things, but I hope not)
Rules that affect the Unit (these rules are shared and would affect the unit and any attached ICs which count as part of the unit for all rules purposes)
1) Acute Senses: if a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule, and the unit arrives on a random table edge…
2) Adamantium Will: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule receives…
3) ATSKNF: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule automatically passes…
4) Blind: any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this rule must…
5) Brotherhood of psykers: a unit containing at least one model with this special rule is a psyker unit...
6) Crusader: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule…
7) Fear (being feared): If the test is failed, the unit succumbs to fear – all models in the unit have their…
8) Fearless: units containing one or more models with the fearless special rule automatically…
9) Hit & Run: a unit containing at least one model with this special rule that is locked in combat…
10) Monster Hunter: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls…
11) Night Vision: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule ignores…
12) Outflank: during deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule is attempting to…
13) Pinning: if a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must…
14) Preferred Enemy: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls…
15) Shrouded: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as…
16) Skilled Rider: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule automatically…
17) Slow and Purposeful: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule cannot…
18) Soul Blaze: if a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule…
19) Split Fire: when a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different…
20) Stealth: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as…
21) Stubborn: when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes morale checks…
22) Tank Hunters: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed…
23) Zealot: a unit containing one or more models with the zealot special rule automatically passes…
Rules that affect individual models (these rules are not shared and only affect individual models or units composed entirely of models who have that special rule – ICs will not benefit from the unit’s rules or give these rules to their unit)
1) Armourbane: if a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon that has this special rule…
2) Concussive: a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule…
3) Daemon: models with the daemon special rule have a…
4) Eternal warrior: if a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound from an attack…
5) Fear (causing fear): at the start of each fight subphase, a unit in base contact with one or more enemy models that cause fear must take…
6) Fleet: a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining…
7) Fleshbane: if a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a melee weapon with this special rule, they always…
8) Furious Charge: in a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds…
9) Hammer of Wrath: if a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional…
10) Instant Death: if a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule…
11) It Will Not Die: at the end of each of your turns, roll a D6 for each of your models with this special rule…
12) Missile Lock: a model with this special rule re-rolls failed to hit when shooting any weapon that has the…
13) Poisoned: if a model has the poisoned special rule, or is attacking with a weapon with the poisoned special rule, it always…
14) Precision shots: if a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit…
15) Precision strikes: if a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit…
16) Psyker: a model with this special rule is a psyker.
17) Rage: in a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it gains…
18) Rampage: at the start of any fight sub-phase, models with the rampage special rule…
19) Relentless: relentless models can shoot with heavy…
19) Rending: if a model has the rending special rule, or is attacking with a weapon that has…
21) Shred: if a model has the shred special rule, or is attacking with a weapon that has the shred special rule…
22) Skyfire: a model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires…
23) Smash: all of the close combat attacks of a model with this special rule…
24) Sniper: if a weapon has the sniper special rule or is fired by a model with the sniper special rule, and rolls a 6 to hit…
25) Specialist Weapon: a model fighting with this weapon does not receive…
26) Strikedown: any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds or passes one more saving throws against…
27) Two-handed: a model attacking with this weapon never…
28) Unwieldy: a model attacking with this weapon piles in…
29) Vector Dancer: a model with this special rule can make…
30) Vector Strike: when swooping or zooming, this model may…
Rules that affect the unit and the model in different ways (these rules are shared for the most part but also have effects specific to the model with the rule that are not shared)
1) 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…
2) Jink: when a unit with any models with the jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink… …if the unit jinks, all models with the jink special rule gain…
3) Move Through Cover: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule rolls an extra… …furthermore, a model with the move through cover special rule automatically passes…
4) Swarms: if, when allocating wounds to a unit with the swarms special rule, two or more models could be chosen as the closest enemy, the closest enemy is always… …if a model with the swarms special rule suffers an unsaved wound from… …a unit composed entirely of models with the swarm special rule is not slowed by…
Special Exceptions (this special rule is specifically stated not to benefit an IC that joins a unit with this rule, in spite of its wording stating “units that contain at least one model with this special rule” but does not state that a unit will not gain it from an attached IC)
1) Infiltrate: units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed last, after all other…
And some rules give a whole unit “model specific” rules that normally are not shared (these are rules like the space wolves’ Healing Balms which give Feel No Pain (6+) to the unit when Feel No Pain is normally a model specific rule – in this case, an attached IC would gain the special rule Feel no pain even though it is not normally shared)
1) Healing Balms: as long as the model with healing balms is alive, all models in his unit have feel no…
Finally, some rules give whole units “unit specific” rules which are shared by all members of the unit – including attached ICs (for some reason nobody ever questions that ICs benefit from these common rules – probably because the results are not as devastating. Please note that the example given is only for units with the space wolves faction but would clearly affect attached ICs if they had that faction)
1) Wolf Standard: any friendly units with the space wolves faction within 12” of the model bearing this banner re-roll failed…
Notice that this last one says “units” benefit from this rule. If an IC is attached, he would benefit. I'm curious if others agree with my assessment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/25 05:09:57
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.
It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 05:37:15
col_impact wrote:It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
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?
To REPEAT: I answered your question with no dodging:
Charistoph wrote: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.
See, not paying attention to the simple facts that make your case crap.
DeathstarMania wrote: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.
No, Counter-attack does not. You are getting stuck on this clause as a requirement, a clause which means nothing for an IC which does not have the rule, by the way.
Remember, the rule has to affect the unit. What does Counter-attack actually affect? "(E)very model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack until the end of the phase".
The whole rule must be reviewed. Its conditions met, and the target of the rule identified. Counter-attack relies on a unit-based trigger: the unit getting charged, then targets the models with this special rule with the +1 Attack bonus.
Stubborn, though, states "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", and that "they" is the unit which has fulfilled the requirements and spoken of in the previous portion of the sentence.
Do you see the differences?
DeathstarMania wrote: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?
Can you actually identify a clause in Stubborn that actually confers anything outside of what I quoted above?
The one you thought Counter-attack would allow for and is matched in Stubborn, does not confer anything, but only indicates a level of possession.
Most of the Special Rules do not pass this muster. Most are only applied on the model itself, and never mention a unit. Some do mention the unit receiving a benefit, but has higher restrictions than Stubborn, aka Fleet which requires ALL the models in the unit to carry its special rule in order for the unit to use it.
Some Formation special rules call out units by name, which restricts units without that name from using it, but the IC joined to one of those named units is still just as much a part of that unit for these special rules as they are for Stubborn.
The IC Special Rules section is not just addressing those special rules which affect a unit, it is directed at ALL special rules, from Acute Senses to Zealot., whether they be a USR, a unit's unique rule like Hunters From Hyperspace, a Formation Special Rule like ...On Target, or a Command Benefit like Ideal Mission Commander. They are to be reviewed to see if they specifically include the other in their rules as in Stubborn.
Stubborn applies its benefit to the unit which fulfills its requirements. It really isn't more complicated than that, though some people think it should be or needs to be. This is not something you need a Rosetta Stone to uncover. It is there in plain and simple English.
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.
col_impact wrote:It's a straightforward question. Just answer it. Or dodge it yet again. Take your pick.
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?
To REPEAT: I answered your question with no dodging:
The amazing thing about computers is that there is this copy paste functionality (ctl-C then ctl-V).
I am sure the thread won't mind if you copy and paste your old answer so everyone is perfectly clear what your answer is.
We wouldn't want people to think you are just trying yet again to dodge a simple question.
So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later.
So I will copy paste my request again.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 07:45:26
your request IS fulfilled by usind the BRB given example of Stubborn.
Its clear explained what the BRB means by requiring a specification.
You yourself cried out the Stubborn rule so many times n tried to use it four your point of view. so why don't you adress our side and show why we are wrong? it seems to be you are not able to do this and so you use other ways to shouting us down.
So adress this :
Spoiler:
Charistoph wrote:
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.
your request IS fulfilled by usind the BRB given example of Stubborn.
Its clear explained what the BRB means by requiring a specification.
You yourself cried out the Stubborn rule so many times n tried to use it four your point of view. so why don't you adress our side and show why we are wrong? it seems to be you are not able to do this and so you use other ways to shouting us down.
Stubborn is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parentheses is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later. It's an example and I am sure it's helpful but it's supplemental to the actual rule.
First things first.
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?
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
So to clarify, your response is "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself", correct?
And, if I understand you correctly, we are just waiting for Charistoph to agree so we can move to the next step.
Nice try.
What you miss entirely is that we already are a lot further.
The rule DOES specify this. the example of Stubborn shows how a specification has to be done. Somehow you mannage to ignore the logic behind it and in addition you refuse to read what others write and so you declare any other reading than yours as invalid. Your logic is flawed. so yourr conlusions are flawed and the claim you make is not suported by real evidence.
Despite this you keep on claiming you are right. Once you held tight on the wording of stubborn itself. how comes that now Stubborn seems to be not important?
Its simple. the moment a rule aims at the unit as a whole any IC joined to that unit also benefits of a special rule. Sure there can be further conditions that need to be fulfilled that a IC can actualy use that rule. but in general joining a unit is all a IC have to do that a rule that aims at a unit as a whole includes the IC. Disprove this! you cant.
You could now mention "fleet" in a try to disprove but then : Fleet has further conditions so "fleet " is a invalid example.
In Fact there is not one single rule that aims at the unit as a whole that would exclude a IC in that unit WITHOUT further written conditions to it.
So where is your logic now? Disprove my point. WE run in circles. A special rule that aims at the whole unit includes any joined IC. because a joined IC is part of the unit for all rule purposes. The IC does not have to have that rule. sole the state of beeing a member of the unit is enough.
"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?
You keep asking that question so I assume you missed my response, since you've asked the same question about 5 times since then:
So to clarify, your response is "[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself", correct?
And, if I understand you correctly, we are just waiting for Charistoph to agree so we can move to the next step.
Nice try.
What you miss entirely is that we already are a lot further.
The rule DOES specify this. the example of Stubborn shows how a specification has to be done. Somehow you mannage to ignore the logic behind it and in addition you refuse to read what others write and so you declare any other reading than yours as invalid. Your logic is flawed. so yourr conlusions are flawed and the claim you make is not suported by real evidence.
Despite this you keep on claiming you are right. Once you held tight on the wording of stubborn itself. how comes that now Stubborn seems to be not important?
Its simple. the moment a rule aims at the unit as a whole any IC joined to that unit also benefits of a special rule. Sure there can be further conditions that need to be fulfilled that a IC can actualy use that rule. but in general joining a unit is all a IC have to do that a rule that aims at a unit as a whole includes the IC. Disprove this! you cant.
You could now mention "fleet" in a try to disprove but then : Fleet has further conditions so "fleet " is a invalid example.
In Fact there is not one single rule that aims at the unit as a whole that would exclude a IC in that unit WITHOUT further written conditions to it.
So where is your logic now? Disprove my point. WE run in circles. A special rule that aims at the whole unit includes any joined IC. because a joined IC is part of the unit for all rule purposes. The IC does not have to have that rule. sole the state of beeing a member of the unit is enough.
Nekooni was able to recognize the grammar of the sentence and express what the rule is essentially telling us to do. The parentheses provides an example that supports (but does not overturn) the essential meaning of the sentence. I agree with his read since it's grammatically correct. He and I are following the actual grammar of the sentence. If you don't adhere to grammar then you are not following RAW.
So _ghost_
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 20:50:49
col_impact wrote: The amazing thing about computers is that there is this copy paste functionality (ctl-C then ctl-V).
Yeah, they are so much better at remembering than you seem to be. Also better at logic. And yes, I use the copy/paste function to keep your name in these quotes when I'm not using a phone.
col_impact wrote: I am sure the thread won't mind if you copy and paste your old answer so everyone is perfectly clear what your answer is.
Interesting that you did leave it out so you still won't have to face the facts directly.
col_impact wrote: We wouldn't want people to think you are just trying yet again to dodge a simple question.
And you're projecting again...
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
col_impact wrote: Let's deal with what the actual sentence says first. We can get to Stubborn later.
Ah, but leaving out Stubborn is pointless since it IS part of the actual sentence. Leaving it out leaves out a lot of context of application. But like I keep saying, you won't address it since your case is crap if you actually address it honestly.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
Odd. that seems to coincide with what I said about Stubborn that you chopped out. What a coincidence...
So, are you ready to address what the rules actually state, including Stubborn, or will you just continue to claim I am dodging so you can dodge out of addressing it honestly, again?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 01:26:31
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.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 01:46:12
I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
Brother Ramses wrote: I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
But that might just make too much sense.
Nobody is saying not to include the ". . . (as in Stubborn) . . . ". I am insisting however that that bit in the parentheses is treated as information in parentheses. "(As in Stubborn) . . . " is supplemental information and Stubborn is merely an example provided for clarification of the rule.
Examining the rule without the parentheses is a way of enforcing that we don't let the information inside the parentheses overturn the information outside the parentheses.
Charistoph has got a lot of revising to do to his argument because he has butchered the grammar of the rule.
However, if we adhere to the grammar of the rule we know that . . .
1) Special rules do not confer automatically from the unit to the IC (and vice versa)
2) There are special rules that confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
3) "[That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the unit's special rule to actually confer to the IC. "[That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the IC's special rule to actually confer to the unit.
4) Stubborn is an example of (2). Stubborn is a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). Stubborn is not the only example.
5) Stubborn meets the requirement in (3). That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character is specified in the Stubborn rule itself. That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit is also specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 04:48:18
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
Yes, I am relying on a multitude of rules in consideration with this, and not only relying on one phrase. This rule does not operate in a vacuum. Indeed, access to this rule is reliant on this rule telling us to treat the IC as a member of the unit. We do not get to ignore the rest of the rules just because you are feeling petty or a desirous to be overly restrictive. If a rule directs its benefits or its rules toward a unit with the IC, that IC is as specifically addressed as it is when the unit is shot or Runs.
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
Oh, please stop. You just don't want to address it because you know it makes your argument crap, especially when you used to rely on it so much before. It is only when I demonstrated that it doesn't work the way you want it to because of its grammar do you desperately try to ignore it. The portion in parentheses is as much a part of the sentence as the rest as it adds additional context. The sentence structure cannot rely on it, but the idea the sentence is carrying may rely on it to provide clarity or context.
"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?
It must address including the IC. If the special rule addresses the unit, the IC is counted as part of the unit, and thus the IC is included in the rule's effect. Alternatively, it may only affect Independent Characters by directly saying as such like if there were such a special rule for a bodyguard unit to allow IC's joined to the unit to reroll their Look Out Sir! roll.
In Yellow I have indicated where you are relying on information not in the rule itself. Therefore you do not satisfy the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Also, this is the requirement of the rule properly expressed.
"[that the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character] must be specified in the rule itself"
It not only has to specifically address the IC but it must also specifically confer with something "specified in the rule itself".
Yes, I am relying on a multitude of rules in consideration with this, and not only relying on one phrase. This rule does not operate in a vacuum. Indeed, access to this rule is reliant on this rule telling us to treat the IC as a member of the unit. We do not get to ignore the rest of the rules just because you are feeling petty or a desirous to be overly restrictive. If a rule directs its benefits or its rules toward a unit with the IC, that IC is as specifically addressed as it is when the unit is shot or Runs.
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
col_impact wrote: So far you just blabber on and on about Stubborn which is an example included in a parenthesis and as I am sure you know information included in parenthesis is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not an just example, a reference point. And you do not seem to want to address it since it makes your whole case crap.
Do you need a refresher on parentheses and grammar? It should be obvious to you that information included in parentheses is supplemental information that can clarify but not overturn the meaning of the sentence. You must adhere to the grammar of the sentence. If you try to overturn the meaning of the sentence with the portion in the parentheses you are violating the grammar (to twist the rule into saying something it does not say) and not adhering to RAW.
We aren't ready to discuss the supplemental example of Stubborn until you adhere to the grammar.
If you don't adhere to the grammar we simply throw your interpretation out.
Oh, please stop. You just don't want to address it because you know it makes your argument crap, especially when you used to rely on it so much before. It is only when I demonstrated that it doesn't work the way you want it to because of its grammar do you desperately try to ignore it. The portion in parentheses is as much a part of the sentence as the rest as it adds additional context. The sentence structure cannot rely on it, but the idea the sentence is carrying may rely on it to provide clarity or context.
So the parenthetical is not important to the structure of the sentence, but that doesn't mean it is not important to the topic of the sentence.
Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/26 05:19:59
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
Putting this rule in to play requires relying on something not specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements for putting the rule in play and do not deny their place.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
Because it doesn't actually confer. Its own language and grammar does not support this as a literal event. How it "confers" is by placing its benefit on the unit which includes the IC. This is a virtual conferance via its benefits. That is what it says.
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.
Then you are relying on something not specified in the rule itself. It must be specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements of the rule.
Putting this rule in to play requires relying on something not specified in the rule itself. Pay the requirements for putting the rule in play and do not deny their place.
Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
col_impact wrote: Stubborn is merely provided as an example of a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by specifying in the rule itself that it confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
We know that the Stubborn special rule does indeed confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). You have said that Stubborn does not actually confer, which goes directly against what the BRB is saying.
Because it doesn't actually confer. Its own language and grammar does not support this as a literal event. How it "confers" is by placing its benefit on the unit which includes the IC. This is a virtual conferance via its benefits. That is what it says.
Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Basically, Charistoph, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 06:03:28
So because Stubborn is the example of a Special Rule that confers, do we hold it as the template for all other tests or do we look at in context with the Special Rules that do not confer to an IC and then apply that rationale to unit Special Rules that do not fall under the vernacular of the generic Special Rules in the BRB? Afterall, the Special Rules in the book is not an exhaustive list of unit Special Rules.
Brother Ramses wrote: I would say that insisting on not including what is in the parentheses to make yiut argument is not adhering to RAW considering the RAW means, Rules As WRITTEN.
But that might just make too much sense.
Nobody is saying not to include the ". . . (as in Stubborn) . . . ". I am insisting however that that bit in the parentheses is treated as information in parentheses. "(As in Stubborn) . . . " is supplemental information and Stubborn is merely an example provided for clarification of the rule.
Examining the rule without the parentheses is a way of enforcing that we don't let the information inside the parentheses overturn the information outside the parentheses.
Charistoph has got a lot of revising to do to his argument because he has butchered the grammar of the rule.
However, if we adhere to the grammar of the rule we know that . . .
1) Special rules do not confer automatically from the unit to the IC (and vice versa)
2) There are special rules that confer from the unit to the IC (and vice versa).
3) "[That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the unit's special rule to actually confer to the IC. "[That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit must be] specified in the rule itself" in order for the IC's special rule to actually confer to the unit.
4) Stubborn is an example of (2). Stubborn is a special rule that confers from the unit to the IC (and vice versa). Stubborn is not the only example.
5) Stubborn meets the requirement in (3). That the unit's special rule confers upon the Independent Character is specified in the Stubborn rule itself. That the IC's special rule confers upon the unit is also specified in the Stubborn rule itself.
to 4) so what in Stubborn does specificaly include ICs? name that part! and a hint : its not the "if at least one model in the unit"
to 5) and again. You fail to adress clearly whyt part of the Stubborn rule qualifies as thee specific including of IC's
You will get nowhere arguing with them - as shown, they goal-shift everytime their argument is proven wrong
Stubborn does not directly specify the IC, yet we know it works. If Stubborn works, so does the rule in question here. Of course, Col will NEVER admit that...
col_impact wrote: Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
Incorrect. I am not allowed to ignore rules already set in place until I am directed to do so. Your personal views that rules operate in a vacuum are unsupportable and pointless, and therefore irrelevant.
Charistoph wrote: Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Incorrect. I am following the rules as their language directs. That is RAW. Your own personal view of vacuum rule occupancy is irrelevant and does not need to be included or reviewed. Especially when you start ignoring those rules only when you are demonstrated that they do not support you. You have kept trimming your argument down and cutting out portions of the rules and you expect use to cut out whole sections of the rulebook when addressing a rule when not otherwise directed to.
Basically, ddischarged_impact, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
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.
col_impact wrote: Then you are not following the plainly stated requirement of the rule that requires something "specified in the rule itself". You do not have permission to do that unless you house rule it.
Incorrect. I am not allowed to ignore rules already set in place until I am directed to do so. Your personal views that rules operate in a vacuum are unsupportable and pointless, and therefore irrelevant.
Charistoph wrote: Then you are directly contradicting the BRB which says quite clearly that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers. You are rewriting the rule. You can do that if you are house ruling. But that is definitely not RAW.
Incorrect. I am following the rules as their language directs. That is RAW. Your own personal view of vacuum rule occupancy is irrelevant and does not need to be included or reviewed. Especially when you start ignoring those rules only when you are demonstrated that they do not support you. You have kept trimming your argument down and cutting out portions of the rules and you expect use to cut out whole sections of the rulebook when addressing a rule when not otherwise directed to.
Basically, ddischarged_impact, you are doing just a whole bunch of house ruling.
So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Brilliant retort there.
The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
We must adhere to both of those RAW statements.
If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
Huh now Stubborn becomes a important example of how rules work again? i thought you told us that this is not the important part of the rules. i'm getting confused.
The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.HOW does Stubborn this? WHAT in Stubborn qualifies to be the specific part?
We must adhere to both of those RAW statements.
If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
There are several posts that addresses the whole solution to the problem
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
What again is your actual Argument and therefor what are the consequences of your argument?
First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/26 19:09:14
col_impact wrote: So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
You have shown nothing, liar. You just keep repeating the same rules with misquotes and asking the same question. You will address nothing that counters your case.
I have not re-written anything, liar. Show an example of how I have re-written Stubborn. You do know how to copy and paste, and I'm pretty sure you know how to multi-quote, too.
All I have done is review the actual words and phrases used in these rules and how they relate to the subject at hand. That sure sounds like RAW to me.
col_impact wrote: And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Projecting again...
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
So why do you want to ignore it again? Oh, right, analysis of this rule proves you have no case.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
So are you actually going to address how this does this with the actual rule? Or are you just going to use your local version of grammar to hand-wave it away? Again.
col_impact wrote: If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
Already proven incorrect through an analysis of both sentences based on the full rules network and not the vacuum that you insist we address it under.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
No, no, no. You do not get to address a direct challenge by just starting your argument over without fleshing anything out. Stick to what is asked of you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/26 19:25:35
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.
col_impact wrote: So basically let me get this straight. I show plain as day that you are not satisfying the "as specified in the rule itself" portion of the IC Special Rules rule and that you have re-written Stubborn to not confer to the IC which directly contradicts what the BRB tell us. I point out that you cannot do that and claim a RAW argument and that you are house ruling.
You have shown nothing, liar. You just keep repeating the same rules with misquotes and asking the same question. You will address nothing that counters your case.
I have not re-written anything, liar. Show an example of how I have re-written Stubborn. You do know how to copy and paste, and I'm pretty sure you know how to multi-quote, too.
All I have done is review the actual words and phrases used in these rules and how they relate to the subject at hand. That sure sounds like RAW to me.
col_impact wrote: And your response is "No I am not! You argument is bad cuz reasons. You are house ruliing!".
Projecting again...
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
So why do you want to ignore it again? Oh, right, analysis of this rule proves you have no case.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
So are you actually going to address how this does this with the actual rule? Or are you just going to use your local version of grammar to hand-wave it away? Again.
col_impact wrote: If you cannot adhere to both of those statements your argument simply is not RAW and we can file it as a house rule.
My argument adheres to both of those statements and so is RAW.
Already proven incorrect through an analysis of both sentences based on the full rules network and not the vacuum that you insist we address it under.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
No, no, no. You do not get to address a direct challenge by just starting your argument over without fleshing anything out. Stick to what is asked of you.
Charistoph,
First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
This is a critical juncture point in our arguments. You don't adhere to what the rules say. I adhere to what the rules say.
First things first. Do you agree with this summation of what the BRB is telling us?
1) The IC Special Rules rule tells us that Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rule rule also tells us that units are only able to confer a special rule to the IC by specifying in the rule itself that the unit's special rule confers to the IC. Stubborn is pointed to as an example of how this is done.
My argument follows from adherence to the IC Special Rule rule and what it is actually telling us. So do you agree that the above summation is what the IC Special Rules rule is actually telling us?
If you are not going to adhere to the IC Special Rules rule then we can tell right away that you are house ruling.
Im sorry this is babbling.
1. Yes i agree that Stubborn is a example.
2. Yes i also agree that the rule itself needs to be so specific that IC's are included.
3. I ask you why stubborn is a example. what in stubborn includes the IC somehow you FAIL do read and response to point 3.