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.
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.
To clarify, you agree that the BRB is telling us . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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
Before proceeding I want to make sure you and I are on the same page as to what the BRB is telling us. It's plain as day what the BRB is telling us. But some arguments have decided to flat out ignore and/or rewrite what the BRB is telling us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/26 19:39:50
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.
To clarify, you agree that the BRB is telling us . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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
Before proceeding I want to make sure you and I are on the same page as to what the BRB is telling us. It's plain as day what the BRB is telling us. But some arguments have decided to flat out ignore and/or rewrite what the BRB is telling us.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
col_impact wrote: 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.
May I ask why you haven't responded to what I provided as an argument - in neither of the two active threads? It makes most of the discussion in here rather pointless, unless I am mistaken.
And if you ask me yet another copy&paste question in lieu of an actual response I swear a kitten might die somewhere. Not by my hand and not because of me, but it might happen.Maybe.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
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.
See. Attempting to reset the argument without addressing any of the other challenges. You expect me to follow through, but you have not followed through to one single challenge on this. Instead you go back to resetting the argument. Tailor your message better.
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.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
col_impact: what is this? we are STILL at the very same point.... no need to re-agreeing with you there . its already been done. do you realy want to spent the rest of the day asking me the same over n over again? come on. we are no toddlers! we don't need to redo thing just we can do it. carry on. make the next step.
Once again. What in Stubborn includes a IC by the written words?
col_impact wrote: 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.
May I ask why you haven't responded to what I provided as an argument - in neither of the two active threads? It makes most of the discussion in here rather pointless, unless I am mistaken.
And if you ask me yet another copy&paste question in lieu of an actual response I swear a kitten might die somewhere. Not by my hand and not because of me, but it might happen.Maybe.
The Formation rules make it clear that rules on the Formation sheet are special rules that the units gain.
Spoiler:
Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
You actually have to prove that something is an effect applied from a unit's or model's special rule. Otherwise its a special rule of the unit that the unit has from being in the Formation (per the Formation rule).
Curse of the Wulfen is a good example of a special rule of the Wulfen that applies an effect on other units.
Spoiler:
All non-vehicle Space Wolves units within 6" of any units of Wulfen are affected by the Curse of the Wulfen.
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.
See. Attempting to reset the argument without addressing any of the other challenges. You expect me to follow through, but you have not followed through to one single challenge on this. Instead you go back to resetting the argument. Tailor your message better.
I have proven you are house ruling. So at this point you are not contributing to a discussion of the RAW.
Just to clarify as i have done in the very quote you used for your post.
i agree on both. 1) and 2)
so after telling you this once more. what is your point? You fail to show me the part in stubborn that does ( acording to YOUR interpretation) include the IC.
Show me this part that supporty YOUR interpretation. Somehow you fail to adress this over n over again. instead you want me to clarify things that are clear as filtered water.
so once AGAIN: What part in Stubborn includes IC's ?
The point (at this point) is that points (1) and (2) are not my interpretation. The BRB is explicitly telling us points (1) and (2) and those points are set in stone and must be obeyed.
The BRB tells us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
So when we go to look at Stubborn as an example we need to come away from that examination with points (1) and (2) supported and intact and not overturned.
No matter what, the BRB is always telling us that . . .
1) Stubborn is an example of a special rule that confers its special rule to the IC.
2) The IC Special Rules 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.
Are we still in agreement at this point? I need to check since Charistoph would not be in agreement at this point.
col_impact: what is this? we are STILL at the very same point.... no need to re-agreeing with you there . its already been done. do you realy want to spent the rest of the day asking me the same over n over again? come on. we are no toddlers! we don't need to redo thing just we can do it. carry on. make the next step.
Once again. What in Stubborn includes a IC by the written words?
I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 22:00:49
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 22:37:16
col_impact wrote: Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Incorrect. This is a requirement. This is not providing anything to anyone. Nor is the term "independent character" actually specifically used. I have pointed this out already, but you ignored it and tried to reset the argument. That it indirectly includes the IC in this condition is only available if we consider the rule of, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." "Contains" also does not grant anything, but indicates possession or something having already been granted.
No, the place that the actual conferring comes in is later, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", where "they" is the unit mentioned before that has met all of those qualifications listed before this portion of the sentence, and the action is applied to "the(m)"
This phrase is also used in Counter-attack, but that would put a lie to the instructions in the list that only directs "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack." So does this rule then lie? Or is your assertion above inaccurate? Or will you just attempt to reset the argument? Again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 00:37:03
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: Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Incorrect. This is a requirement. This is not providing anything to anyone. Nor is the term "independent character" actually specifically used. I have pointed this out already, but you ignored it and tried to reset the argument. That it indirectly includes the IC in this condition is only available if we consider the rule of, "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." "Contains" also does not grant anything, but indicates possession or something having already been granted.
No, the place that the actual conferring comes in is later, "they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers", where "they" is the unit mentioned before that has met all of those qualifications listed before this portion of the sentence, and the action is applied to "the(m)"
This phrase is also used in Counter-attack, but that would put a lie to the instructions in the list that only directs "every model with the Counter-attack special rule in the unit gets +1 Attack." So does this rule then lie? Or is your assertion above inaccurate? Or will you just attempt to reset the argument? Again.
Incorrect.
You are not really participating in this discussion on RAW since you have gone off on your own with your personal house rule.
So this is a discussion about RAW and I will provide a clarification on the points you bring up for the benefit of _ghost_ and others, but you can disregard since you are working on your house rule that ignores the IC Special Rules rule.
####################################
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
The IC Special Rules rule has declared that unless specified in the rule itself the special rules of the unit do not confer to the attached IC.
So the 'counts as rule' is not going to apply for two reasons.
First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Stubborn meets the requirement set forth by the IC Special Rules rule and the special rule is conferred.
The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 01:12:34
You are not really participating in this discussion on RAW since you have gone off on your own with your personal house rule.
So this is a discussion about RAW and I will provide a clarification on the points you bring up for the benefit of _ghost_ and others, but you can disregard since you are working on your house rule that ignores the IC Special Rules rule.
So you FINALLY start to address it after all this time, and you cannot resist sniping even further? Wow, just wow. You have already demonstrated that you would rather accuse people of "cheating" the system by "misusing" grammar than actually address the situation. But I guess you just cannot stop.
col_impact wrote: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
Correct it is A clause specified in the rule itself. Can you solidly identify this as THE clause? Going by the standards you insist I follow, we cannot use anything from the IC Special Rules section. Not that would help either, because IT doesn't specifically say what we use, either.
col_impact wrote: 'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
Yes, and no... The "unit" before "contains" would include attached models (good to see you finally admit it), but for an IC without it, it would not. And yes, it WOULD require the "counts as" rule since without it the IC would be no more part of the unit than the Transport sitting on the side.
AND "contains" still does not actually GIVE anything, it is a verb that indicates possession already existing, you know: "have or hold", "be made up of", or "consist of".
So THAT cannot be the proper clause using actual words and grammar used in the english language.
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
Sorry, that is an assumption without any rules support, not to mention, if we use YOUR standards which you are trying to hold me to, we cannot use it to address Stubborn's qualifications. And it does not say it overrides anything but the conferring of special rules between IC and unit. The concept that it overrides "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is an addition made by you and not in any words, phrases, language, or grammar of the section you are referencing. Please try again.
col_impact wrote: First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Really? Could you highlight exactly where it specifically states this? Not your assumptions as you outlined above, but where the words literally appear, "an IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of special rules", please.
col_impact wrote: Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
Again, could you highlight the exact language an IC is referenced in the Stubborn special rule?
col_impact wrote: There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Actually it doesn't meet the standards of specifically conferring the special rule to the IC/unit, all it does is allow for it to be included by establishing an identity of the target, and that identity would include the IC/unit in its scope. That's it. Nothing actually happens in this referenced phrase.
It is only when we are told that "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers" that something happens, something is given. In this case what is given is permission to ignore. This permission is given to "they" who have fulfilled the qualifications.
Don't get me wrong, this phrase you love IS important in establishing the identity of the IC and unit combined, but by itself it means absolutely nothing, as demonstrated by Counter-attack's language and grammar.
col_impact wrote: The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
Just incorporation isn't the goal, though. The rule must specifically confer itself to the other half of the IC/unit combination, and this phrase alone does not do that with its grammar and language. Something else is needed and that is the actual language which talks about an action, like "ignore".
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 04:53:26
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: "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
This is a clause specified in the rule itself.
Correct it is A clause specified in the rule itself. Can you solidly identify this as THE clause? Going by the standards you insist I follow, we cannot use anything from the IC Special Rules section. Not that would help either, because IT doesn't specifically say what we use, either.
It is the clause that specifically extends the recipients of the effect of Stubborn to attached models (ie the IC) which is how the BRB uses confer. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall between the unit and IC in terms of special rules. This clause breaks down that wall by rejoining the unit and attached models as recipients of the effects of Stubborn.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: 'Contained' would include attached models. An IC is a model attached to the unit and would be minimally considered contained by the unit and this does not require the 'counts as' rule. The only thing required is the mere fact that the IC has joined the unit (which the IC Special Rules rule is fully aware of).
Yes, and no... The "unit" before "contains" would include attached models (good to see you finally admit it), but for an IC without it, it would not. And yes, it WOULD require the "counts as" rule since without it the IC would be no more part of the unit than the Transport sitting on the side.
AND "contains" still does not actually GIVE anything, it is a verb that indicates possession already existing, you know: "have or hold", "be made up of", or "consist of".
So THAT cannot be the proper clause using actual words and grammar used in the english language.
Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" is not required and in fact that rule is not wholly in effect since the IC Special Rules rule has specifically declared exceptions with regards to special rules of the unit the IC attaches to. Only the minimal "joined" is required and the IC Special Rules rule already acknowledges the facticity of the IC joining the unit ("when an Independent Character joins a unit . . ."). A model joined to a unit is contained in a unit. The IC Special Rules rule has placed a wall by default between the unit and the IC as far as extending the effect of special rules on the IC and this clause breaches that wall.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The IC Special Rules rule is fully aware that the IC has joined the unit and has overwritten the "while an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." so the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purpose of determining if a special rule confers to the IC.
Sorry, that is an assumption without any rules support, not to mention, if we use YOUR standards which you are trying to hold me to, we cannot use it to address Stubborn's qualifications. And it does not say it overrides anything but the conferring of special rules between IC and unit. The concept that it overrides "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is an addition made by you and not in any words, phrases, language, or grammar of the section you are referencing. Please try again.
The IC Special Rules rule specifically declares that the IC does not count as part of the unit for all purposes in the case of special rules. In the case of special rules you follow the IC Special Rules rule. Special rules of the unit are set to not confer to the IC by default. There needs to be something "specified in the rule itself" for the special rule of the unit to confer to the IC. So clearly the IC is not counting as part of the unit for all rule purposes in the case of the unit's special rules.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: First, it is being overwritten byt the IC Special Rules rule.
Really? Could you highlight exactly where it specifically states this? Not your assumptions as you outlined above, but where the words literally appear, "an IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of special rules", please.
Easy. Just read the rule. The IC Special Rules rule provides exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of the unit's special rules. They do not confer unless something "specified in the rule itself" confers them to the IC.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: Second, the IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself".
Again, could you highlight the exact language an IC is referenced in the Stubborn special rule?
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"
An exact referencing of the IC is not required. Only a specified incorporation of the special rule to attached models in the rule itself. The IC is an attached model. The clause logically incorporates attached models and is in the rule itself. The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: There is nothing magic about the phrase ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"). It just meets the requirement of the IC Special Rules rule so any additional logic (such as in the Counter-attack) obviously can change the logic. There are other variants, but it should be noted that the phrase is very popular in the BRB. The BRB is not trying to hide how Stubborn confers from the unit to the IC or how other rules accomplish the same. There is a clear pattern in the rules of the BRB for a reason.
Actually it doesn't meet the standards of specifically conferring the special rule to the IC/unit, all it does is allow for it to be included by establishing an identity of the target, and that identity would include the IC/unit in its scope. That's it. Nothing actually happens in this referenced phrase.
It is only when we are told that "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers" that something happens, something is given. In this case what is given is permission to ignore. This permission is given to "they" who have fulfilled the qualifications.
Don't get me wrong, this phrase you love IS important in establishing the identity of the IC and unit combined, but by itself it means absolutely nothing, as demonstrated by Counter-attack's language and grammar.
My argument has no problem with Counter-attack. There is nothing magic about the clause and there are plenty of variants of the clause. It can be freely modified by additional logic.
Charistoph wrote:
col_impact wrote: The clause ("a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule") logically incorporates the attached IC and the clause is "specified in the rule itself".
Just incorporation isn't the goal, though. The rule must specifically confer itself to the other half of the IC/unit combination, and this phrase alone does not do that with its grammar and language. Something else is needed and that is the actual language which talks about an action, like "ignore".
Nope. The clause extends who receives the effect of Stubborn onto attached models and that is all that is required by the IC Special Rules rule. The IC is an attached model. And it's fully "specified in the rule itself". The IC Special Rules rule is satisfied.
Re-incorporation is exactly all that is required. The IC Special Rules rule put a wall in between the unit and IC in terms of who receives the effect of Stubborn. Now, by virtue of the clause, that wall is gone.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 07:55:11
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
"If you wait a few months, they'll pick one of the worst codexes and they'll nerf almost everything, its an abstract sort of balance, but it's the sort of balance gw likes... "
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Actually you miss a very important point here:
The part you quoted is on of the conditions that are necessary or that have to be fulfilled that the unit may use Stubborn. I agree with you that this includes any IC's joined to the unit so that it would be enough if only a IC has that rule. So eigther the IC, the Unit or both can have Stubborn and so the unit as a while could use it. So now we could be done right?
i say no!
The reason is that a IC is a member of any unit that it has joined. So:
Unit moves. IC moved as member of the unit
Unit shoots. IC shoots as member of the unit
...
all of this actions are on the unit level and only then each of them breaks down to the individual models in the unit.
So how do you col_impact exclude a IC from rules that aim at the whole unit? without excluding IC specificaly?
then this happens when you claim that stuff like this Wulfen Special Rule that only reffer to the unit.?
You have not the permission to exclude a IC by such cases. and in addition this is not a case of confering rules.
col_impact wrote: I appreciate your patience. What should be noted is that Charistoph is not in agreement with the points made so far. His argument can be filed away as a house rule.
ICs are attached models to the unit.
The IC Special Rule rule makes it clear that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to ICs "when an Independent Character joins a unit".
But, logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC, correct?
Answer my Question. I waited long enough.
How does Stubborn by logic include ICs?
Okay, assuming that you agree that logic "specified in the rule itself" that would extend to models attached to the unit would incorporate the IC
Stubborn includes this clause specified in the rule itself
Spoiler:
"a unit that contains at least one model with this special"
"Contains" includes the models of the actual unit and any attached models to the unit.
The clause logically incorporates the IC in the case of a unit's special rule conferring to the IC, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
The clause also logically incorporates the unit in the case of an IC's special rule conferring to the unit, and it is all stated right there in the rule itself.
Actually you miss a very important point here:
The part you quoted is on of the conditions that are necessary or that have to be fulfilled that the unit may use Stubborn. I agree with you that this includes any IC's joined to the unit so that it would be enough if only a IC has that rule. So eigther the IC, the Unit or both can have Stubborn and so the unit as a while could use it. So now we could be done right?
i say no!
The reason is that a IC is a member of any unit that it has joined. So:
Unit moves. IC moved as member of the unit
Unit shoots. IC shoots as member of the unit
...
all of this actions are on the unit level and only then each of them breaks down to the individual models in the unit.
So how do you col_impact exclude a IC from rules that aim at the whole unit? without excluding IC specificaly?
then this happens when you claim that stuff like this Wulfen Special Rule that only reffer to the unit.?
You have not the permission to exclude a IC by such cases. and in addition this is not a case of confering rules.
Well for sure the Wulfen special rule is not conferred to the IC. The IC Special Rules rule is simply not being satisifed by the Wulfen special rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
A separate issue entirely is how exactly that affects an attached IC in actual practice.
I have already expressed on page 1 of this thread my views on the consequences of the rule not conferring to the IC.
so just to get you right. you agree that rules that aim at the whole unit automaticaly include a IC that joined this unit?
Just by the logic that if a ic joins a unit is a member of that unit for all rule purposes?
_ghost_ wrote: so just to get you right. you agree that rules that aim at the whole unit automaticaly include a IC that joined this unit?
Just by the logic that if a ic joins a unit is a member of that unit for all rule purposes?
Nope. Not at all. The IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the rule that "if an IC joins a unit it is a member of that unit for all rule purposes". Special rules do not automatically confer to the IC.
This is explicitly stated in the rules and you must adhere to it and for special rules to confer it must be satisfied.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
This is a permissive ruleset.
Per the IC Special Rules rule (which you cannot ignore), the IC does not benefit from the Bounding Leap rule. Bounding Leap doesn't have anything "as specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to give itself exception to the IC Special Rules rule.
However, per the Characters and Assault rule the IC is allowed to charge along with the unit.
So the IC gets to charge along with the unit but the unit loses the re-roll of the charge distance since the IC does not benefit from Bounding Leap as the whole unit must charge at the speed of the slowest model, which in this case is a model with a single roll for the charge distance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 20:27:38
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
And you're still dodging questions...............
"If you wait a few months, they'll pick one of the worst codexes and they'll nerf almost everything, its an abstract sort of balance, but it's the sort of balance gw likes... "
Why do keep going with this? you are both well aware that this will never be resolved (between you two at least), and no new readers are going to take either of you seriously at this point. You're just derailing threads and pissing everyone off.
Charistoph, you have the agreement of most of the forum on this issue. You don't need to convince him
You or anyone is free to adopt Charistoph's house rule on rules like this. No one is stopping you.
And you're still dodging questions...............
Why do I keep going with this? I am resolving rules issues with RAW.
So if you are more interested in house rules then what I am posting in this thread won't be of interest to you.
_ghost_ wrote: You dodged my question. make a general statement!
You are using "affect" loosely. Provide example cases.
Actually no i am not using it loosely.
What happens if any given rule affect the whole unit? the moment a rule mentions the term unit this includes also a joined IC. so tell me what happens? make a general statement
_ghost_ wrote: You dodged my question. make a general statement!
You are using "affect" loosely. Provide example cases.
Actually no i am not using it loosely.
What happens if any given rule affect the whole unit? the moment a rule mentions the term unit this includes also a joined IC. so tell me what happens? make a general statement
Per the IC Special Rules rule, the mere mention of the term unit does not automatically confer the unit's special rule to the IC. The IC is not part of the unit for all rules purposes in the case of unit's special rules conferring to the IC. The IC Special Rules rule requires something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule from the unit to the IC. Stubborn is mentioned as an example of a special rule that meets this requirement. The IC Special Rules rule is in the BRB and we must adhere to it.
Spoiler:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
_ghost_ wrote: So you mentionet several things that do not happen... but stil lfil to tell me what happens if a rule affects a unit. interesting.
It;s best to provide examples. I would not want to provide an answer that overgeneralizes. "Affect" can mean a lot of things and I cannot read your mind.
"