Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
col_impact wrote: 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.
Actually, no, it isn't. All it does is allow any model in the unit who has it to allow the unit to receive the benefit. This is fully fulfilled by the the rest of the sentence directing its benefit to "they" and that "they" being partly defined by that clause and the other part by the "takes Morale checks or Pinning Tests". If either clause is not fulfilled, "they", meaning the unit as a whole including joined ICs, do not receive the benefit of "ignor(ing) any negative Leadership modifiers."
It doesn't restore any broken down connection between IC and unit, because the IC is never specifically addressed. It is only by operating under a previous rule and condition, i.e. the "counts as part of the unit" are we allowed to consider it. If the IC didn't "count as part of the unit" it could not be that "one model with this special rule".
For some reason, you also think rules can and do operate in a vacuum from the rest of the rulebook. Care to explain why?
col_impact wrote: 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.
Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" IS required since the IC is not mentioned in Stubborn. In fact, it comes from the very same section that tells us HOW to join the IC. You have not indicated how we ignore one sentence while at the same time using the rest of the section to justify this without specific direction.
What you have said is that the IC Special Rules section separates the IC from the unit for the purposes of Special Rule. You have not properly demonstrated HOW the IC Special Rules section separates the IC from the unit in this case, though. Nor have you demonstrated how Stubborn returns it back again with specifically stating it. Nor have you demonstrated why we have to pay attention to the IC Special Rules section when working Stubborn when the IC Special Rules section does not have to pay attention to the last sentence of the IC Joining and Leaving a Unit section.
In short, you have redefined a rule to fit your own preconceptions and added to one rule while ignoring others to complete this judgement.
col_impact wrote: 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.
Incorrect. The IC Special Rules say that the rules do not confer from one to another, NOT that the IC does not count as part of the unit. You are changing the rule to fit your perspective and does not coincide with your assertion that you operate under Rules As Written.
The IC Special Rules section states:
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.
Taken literally, all it states that the unless otherwise specified in the rule itself, the unit does not give, grant, or bestow its special rules to the Independent Character, and vice versa.
Care to highlight where it says ICs are NOT to count as part of the unit or that separation reoccurs? Note, in order to treat "confer" as anything other than "grant or bestow" or any other term used in the quote, you must also demonstrate that it is defined or used as such somewhere else in the rulebook as well.
Do note that this:
col_impact wrote: 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.
Does not count since it does not have anything written that actually states that without a term change being established before hand.
col_impact wrote: "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.
Ah, so an exact referencing is not required, even though, "Unless specified in the rule itself" is the requirement? Do you understand what "specify" means? Care to actually explain with proper english how one can "specify" without being specific?
And I do agree with you that the exact reference is not required, I have stated as such before, it just requires an already established reference point to bring it back together. This is a standard pattern in mathematics, programming, instructions, and game rules. "Contains at least one model with this special rule" does not apply in a case where we are looking at a model WITHOUT that special rule but is not considered part of the unit, but rather looking at the unit that already has it and only considers all the models that are part of the unit in its consideration.
In short, the unity between IC and unit must be established BEFORE looking at "contains at least one model with this special rule" as that phrase holds zero capacity to establishing unity, only level of possession. The only way that could be done is that the IC's Joining and Leaving a Unit section is in full force and the IC Special Rules section did not separate the connection.
col_impact wrote: 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.
Care to add more than, "no it doesn't have a problem"? Do you think a Black Templars Chaplain will gain a Bonus +1 Attack when Charged while it is joined to a Space Wolves Grey Hunter Pack (which has Counter-attack)? Why or why not?
col_impact wrote: 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.
Incorrect. The IC Special Rules section phrase:
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.
Does not require reincorporation to occur, especially since separation is never actually defined here, it literally states that rules are not conferred unless specified. So, the rule must state that it is giving its rule (or at least its benefit as demonstrated by Stubborn) to the included IC (or to the unit from the IC) by some method.
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.
_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.
I am sure you can provide examples.
You do not need to read my mind. We are both talking bout what in your mind.
So i want to know YOUR answer to this. How does this in general work in YOUR mind. thats it.
What happens when a rule affects a unit.?
The moment a unit is the target of a effect or action a IC is included. right?
What wording in Stubborn confers the special rule to an IC in the unit?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
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.
We know two things.
1) We know for certain that special rules are not conferred from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) by default, unless there is something "specified in the rule itself".
2) We know for certain that in the example of Stubborn, that the unit that has Stubborn special rule is able to confer the special rule to the IC by virtue of something "specified in the rule itself".
So right off the bat any interpretation that would say that Stubborn does not actually confer can be filed away as a house rule. [Have you revised your argument yet Charistoph or is it still a house rule?]
So confer is important. The Stubborn rule must confer from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not have Stubborn in our interpretation in order for our interpretation to coincide with what the BRB is saying and for us to have a RAW interpretation.
And we must be able to isolate something "specified in the rule itself" that when taken away prevents the unit with Stubborn from conferring Stubborn to the IC.
So what does confer mean?
Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
So in the case of a rule like Stubborn, the power or ability of Stubborn is simply the ability to ignore any negative Leadership modifiers when taking morale or pinning checks. Again, super straightforward.
So all that the IC Special Rules rule is saying is that an IC that joins a unit with Stubborn does not get to have the Stubborn ability of the unit by default.
If the IC Special Rules rule did not exist then the IC would get the Stubborn ability simply by virtue of "count[ing] as part of the unit for all rules purposes" since the "counts as . . ." rule would be in the position of setting the default handling of special rules of the unit with an IC attached.
However, the IC Special Rules rule does indeed exist and that rule provides exception to the "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and sets it so that the IC "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes minus the purpose of conferring special rules" so an IC attached to a unit with Stubborn does not get the ability of Stubborn by default.
In order to get the Stubborn ability there must be something "specified in the rule itself".
What wording in Stubborn confers the special rule to an IC in the unit?
This is pretty simple to determine. All we need to do is examine the rule of Stubborn and remove a portion of the rule away to the point that it will only confer to the entity that originally has it (whether unit or IC) before the IC joins the unit.
If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
However, if Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
If someone wants to contest my RAW interpretation, they should focus on providing a better RAW alternative and provide the following . . .
1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
If you cannot provide all 3 then you have a house rule and therefore do not have a RAW argument worth considering in my opinion.
I don't have anything against house rules. I am just only interested in RAW arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/29 01:46:04
col_impact wrote: Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
This part is inaccurate, and it is affecting the rest of your interpretation. You are either adding words or emplacing your own interpretation upon it.
(with object) Grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right): moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her
A benefit CAN be the subject of the verb "confer", but it can be something else. The main definition is not including the parenthetical, but using it as a reference point.
So, in use with the sentence in question, it translates as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit."
col_impact wrote: If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
Incorrect. The IC is still being represented under the list of "a unit" because under the real phrase the IC is still represented under the exact same phrase, as I will demonstrate shortly.
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.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
IF we are looking at an IC without the rule and a unit with the rule, there is zero literal difference in reference between "a unit" and "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule".
Can you show how "that contains at least one model with this special rule" translates to "including the Independent Character that does NOT have this special rule"?
From what I can see: "independent character" is not used, it is asking for a model WITH this special rule, and it is asking for possession via "contains" rather than bringing other things in by including them.
So, this phrase completely fails as a requirement using standard grammar for the purpose of being an example of allowing a unit to "confer" one of its special rules to a joined IC. The only place the IC can be found in this entire phrase is just the beginning, "a unit".
Keep in mind, though, this phrase DOES work in the other direction in qualifying the unit to be receiving the benefit of the special rule from the IC. Remember, this phrase is only establishing a level of possession requirement for the rule. If the unit does not have it on its datasheet, an IC with this special rule joining it will then satisfy the "contains one model with this special rule" condition written in Stubborn and a host of other USRs.
col_impact wrote: If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
Umm.... no it does not because you start with flawed concepts to begin with and then ignore what it literally states in favor of using an odd form of literary math to justify your position which requires an assumption that your position is correct first to be accurate.
col_impact wrote: 1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
Maybe if you actually linked which dictionary you used that might work better. More importantly, you ignore numerous other dictionary definitions along the way to satisfy it.
col_impact wrote: 2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
Your two versions fails because 1) your original starting premise is false and 2) specifically written is not based on literary math to come to a conclusion based on what is not there in the difference.
col_impact wrote: 3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
Already demonstrated and which you have not properly addressed using the proper rules of grammar. You just dismiss it claiming I don't know what I am talking about. Considering what I just covered above, you may want to review that.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote: Directly from the dictionary, confer means 'to grant, bestow the power or ability [of something]' or 'to impart or invest a quality or characteristic [of something]' so in this case the BRB is using confer to mean 'to grant or bestow the power/ability [of a special rule]' or simply 'having Stubborn or Fleet or Acute Senses, etc.' which are all characteristics, qualities, or abilities that the special rules of the same name are trying to impart. Super straightforward.
This part is inaccurate, and it is affecting the rest of your interpretation. You are either adding words or emplacing your own interpretation upon it.
(with object) Grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right): moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her
A benefit CAN be the subject of the verb "confer", but it can be something else. The main definition is not including the parenthetical, but using it as a reference point.
So, in use with the sentence in question, it translates as "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit."
Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
I know this stuff is mystifying to you and your argument has the bizarre conclusion that Stubborn does not actually confer - which goes directly against what the BRB is telling us - and you are heavily invested in your house rule argument.
So let's zero in on it.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
I guess you have some revising of your argument to do and my RAW argument still stands.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/29 07:35:05
What wording in Stubborn confers the special rule to an IC in the unit?
This is pretty simple to determine. All we need to do is examine the rule of Stubborn and remove a portion of the rule away to the point that it will only confer to the entity that originally has it (whether unit or IC) before the IC joins the unit.
If we join an IC without Stubborn to a unit with Stubborn and Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
When a unit with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The IC Special Rules rule has blocked the special rules of the unit from being conferred onto the IC and so the IC does not get the Stubborn ability.
However, if Stubborn is written this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
This version of the Stubborn rule is endorsed by the IC Special Rules rule as allowing the special rule to be conferred onto the IC. So in this version the IC gets the Stubborn ability. So let's zero in on how.
If we take the two versions and subtract one from the other we get . . .
Spoiler:
that contains at least one model with this special rule
This clause logically incorporates any models that have attached to the entity that is being described [in this case the entity is a unit]. The IC is of course a model that has joined to the unit and is now attached to the unit.
Moreover, this clause is fully "specified in the rule itself". A requirement of the IC Special Rules rule is that the special rule has something "specified in the rule itself" that would confer the special rule to the IC (and vice versa).
If someone wants to contest my RAW interpretation, they should focus on providing a better RAW alternative and provide the following . . .
1) A plausible definition of confer that means in the case of the Stubborn Special rule that Stubborn is actually conferred to the IC when the IC without Stubborn joins a unit with Stubborn. I have provided a dictionary supported and BRB supported definition.
2) Two versions of Stubborn - a version [this should be the version in the BRB] which confers the special rule from the unit that has Stubborn to the IC that does not and a hypothetical version which does not confer the special rule from the unit with Stubborn to the attached IC without Stubborn. I provided two versions which functioned differently in light of the IC Special Rules rule - one conferred the special rule and one did not.
3) Something that you can point to that is "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen - if you satisfy (2) like I did in my RAW argument then you should have no problem pointing to the something "specified in the rule itself" that changes how the rule confers per the IC Special Rules rule. I was able to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that makes it all happen.
If you cannot provide all 3 then you have a house rule and therefore do not have a RAW argument worth considering in my opinion.
I don't have anything against house rules. I am just only interested in RAW arguments.
So as long as the rule has the wording "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule..." then the rule confers?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
"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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
I'm actually heading somewhere with this, I just want to make sure I understand col_impacts claim in its entirety.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
_ghost_, from what I've seen, most people agree that if a special rule affects a unit in general, it will affect an attached IC as well.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
I disagree. since i use as much text as col_impact uses...
Although we have no explicit wording on how the confering is done we can use logic and the rest of the rules to determine it. By logic i menn grammar and in fact all the stuff the BRB give us as definitions of units.. models, how rules are written on other parts and so on(this was neighter a complete list nor is there any special order). For everyone who now jumps on the train on " You cant do that this is not raw!" Well i find it realy amazing that anyone that looks at every rule on such a tight angle is ever able to play a single game. Just because such ones must happen to miss all of the context of the rules given.
col_impact wrote:I know this stuff is mystifying to you and your argument has the bizarre conclusion that Stubborn does not actually confer - which goes directly against what the BRB is telling us - and you are heavily invested in your house rule argument.
The only thing that is mystifying to me is why you think your grammatical voodoo is acceptable when it counters everything you expect me to follow as well as ignoring the grammatical use and terms in the sentences.
You now have changed your argument without actually addressing anything directed at you, and it still fails to be supported using basic logic, diction, and grammar. Critical Thinking is required to follow your path, and it still leads me to a different place than where you intended.
col_impact wrote:Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
Correct to a point. Remember, though, that it is the special rule itself that it talks about not conferring, not the ability. The IC Special Rules section prevents the virtual copying of the Stubborn special rule from a Dark Angel Tactical Squad to an Imperial Fists Captain. The Stubborn rule then supplies its benefit to the unit when its conditions are met and they ignore any negative leadership modifiers.
col_impact wrote:I guess you have some revising of your argument to do and my RAW argument still stands.
Try again. And this time, try to remember exactly what each sentence and phrase is actually addressing.
kambien wrote:its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
Actually he isn't using most of the text of the stubborn rule, he is only using one part of it, and that part only indicates a level of possession requirement, not any actual action to be placed on anything. The only time any actionable terms are used is when they ignore any negative leadership modifiers and use Fearless instead of Stubborn. Ddischarged_impact completely ignores all of this. I did a full analysis of Stubborn in one of these threads to demonstrate this. He just ignored it and otherwise claimed I did not understand grammar.
He is partially correct. His grammar I understand about as easily as the declaration of Nicea, English translation or Latin.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/29 16:18:51
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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
It is an extraordinary claim that you need all of the "contains" clause, when neither contains nor unit specify the IC is included. They BOTH absolutely and in ALL circumstances require you to reference the rule that the IC is a member of the unit. Meaning to claim it is NECESSARY is the extraordinary claim. And is what Col will refuse to confirm as to do so undermines their argument...
col_impact wrote:Okay, Let's zero in a little more on confer and on special rules.
Special rules as defined by the BRB.
Spoiler:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength. Conversely, a special rule may improve a model’s survivability by granting it resistance to pain, or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. Special rules allow snipers to target the weak spots of their foes, scouts to range ahead of the army and anti-aircraft guns to blow flyers out of the skies.
A special rule is at its core an ability that is represented by the special rule. So per the BRB, the Stubborn special rule is the Stubborn ability represented by the Stubborn special rule. The Stubborn special rule "stands for" the Stubborn ability.
When a special rule is conferred, the BRB is granting or bestowing the ability of the special rule. Super super simple.
Correct to a point. Remember, though, that it is the special rule itself that it talks about not conferring, not the ability. The IC Special Rules section prevents the virtual copying of the Stubborn special rule from a Dark Angel Tactical Squad to an Imperial Fists Captain. The Stubborn rule then supplies its benefit to the unit when its conditions are met and they ignore any negative leadership modifiers.
You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col is making the extraordinary claim that, despite not actually specifying the IC at all, and providing no additional / further specification indeed than simply "a unit", the required phrase is somehow "a unit that contains..."
There is, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. Or how this is MORE specific than "a unit" given that NEITHER mention the IC - and therefore do not meet any definition of "specific" that can be sensibly applied.
its not that extraordinary . col is using the most of the text stubborn rule ( since we don't actually know what part of the rule makes it confer the rules to the IC since its not specificly stated but know that the stubborn rules does in fact do it ) so he would in fact be the "most correct"
It is an extraordinary claim that you need all of the "contains" clause, when neither contains nor unit specify the IC is included. They BOTH absolutely and in ALL circumstances require you to reference the rule that the IC is a member of the unit. Meaning to claim it is NECESSARY is the extraordinary claim. And is what Col will refuse to confirm as to do so undermines their argument...
I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
So as long as the rule has the wording "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule..." then the rule confers?
There is nothing magic about the wording. It just accomplishes logically what the IC Special Rules rule requires.
It's entirely feasible for a rule to use entirely different wording and logic to accomplish the same thing.
It's also entirely feasible for a rule to include that exact wording BUT additional logic that could undermine the logic of the clause already provided to the point that it logically asserts the opposite. That is just the way logic can work. So pay attention to ALL the logic specified in the rule.
So it is not a magic phrase. Just a phrase that is popularly used by the BRB, which is a hint that it is significant, but nothing more than a hint. You need to examine each case and apply the IC Special Rules rule.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/03/01 07:24:01
col_impact wrote: You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Correct. However, you are adding to what the actual phrase means.
col_impact wrote: Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Growing up studying the American government farther than the public school system provides, I have a decent idea.
The OED actually has a lot of different definitions for it, most are not practical for the use in this case.
But to be specific, when if a rule is granted, the ability follows it. Though, in the case of Stubborn, the rule itself does not actually get granted, only the effect or ability.
col_impact wrote: Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
Oh, I am not the one mixing definitions here in a confused manner.
col_impact wrote: So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Ummm, I never said Stubborn didn't confer its ability on to the attached IC. The proper thing that we are actually addressing is the "how". In fact, I have stated numerous times at this point specifically that.
col_impact wrote: Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
Well, considering I am actually using the words presented in the way the words are presented and not looking for magical decoding materials to help me along.
You still are starting with an incorrect premise, though. The IC Special Rules section does absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit. Remember, unless a model specifically has a rule, it generally does not get to use it. The IC Special Rules section reinforces this, it does not do anything to actually separate the IC and unit in to two separate entities in regards to Special Rules OR their abilities.
col_impact wrote: I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Oh, now that is a lie or horribly mistaken. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears singing 'la la la', does not mean that no one has offered a plausible solution. I gave a full study of the entire Stubborn rule, you only focus on the first portion.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
I have. You still have not addressed it at all. You have completely ignored it and tried to reset the argument when I did. You ignore any actionable verbs in the sentence in favor of a possessive verb that does not even address the subject in question. That makes zero plausible sense.
Talk about waiting.
col_impact wrote: In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
So, I win since I fully outlined everything in the Stubborn rule and you have yet to actually addressed, much less countered, it?
Thank you for finally admitting it. This will save so much time now.
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: You are the one who is incorrect. Special rules "stand for" abilities. When a special rule is conferred to a model that ability is bestowed on the model.
Correct. However, you are adding to what the actual phrase means.
col_impact wrote: Do I need to school you on what 'represent' means?
Growing up studying the American government farther than the public school system provides, I have a decent idea.
The OED actually has a lot of different definitions for it, most are not practical for the use in this case.
But to be specific, when if a rule is granted, the ability follows it. Though, in the case of Stubborn, the rule itself does not actually get granted, only the effect or ability.
col_impact wrote: Special rules is a game term that has game meaning. The BRB does not define special rules as 'rules that are special' but as something that "stands for" 'an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules".
To a large measure this isn't your fault. The wording "special rules" is misleading. It would have been better had the BRB used the wording "special abilities".
Oh, I am not the one mixing definitions here in a confused manner.
col_impact wrote: So you can no longer ignore that Stubborn does indeed confer the Stubborn ability onto the attached IC.
Ummm, I never said Stubborn didn't confer its ability on to the attached IC. The proper thing that we are actually addressing is the "how". In fact, I have stated numerous times at this point specifically that.
col_impact wrote: Or go ahead and keep ignoring it. To continue insisting that Stubborn does not indeed confer Stubborn at this point just makes you look like a Tobacco litigator.
Well, considering I am actually using the words presented in the way the words are presented and not looking for magical decoding materials to help me along.
You still are starting with an incorrect premise, though. The IC Special Rules section does absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit. Remember, unless a model specifically has a rule, it generally does not get to use it. The IC Special Rules section reinforces this, it does not do anything to actually separate the IC and unit in to two separate entities in regards to Special Rules OR their abilities.
col_impact wrote: I am the only one that has offered a plausible solution in light of what the BRB instructs us to do.
Oh, now that is a lie or horribly mistaken. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears singing 'la la la', does not mean that no one has offered a plausible solution. I gave a full study of the entire Stubborn rule, you only focus on the first portion.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to offer a plausible alternative. Point to the specific portion in the Stubborn rule that grants the Stubborn ability and provide a wording of the rule that does not grant the ability as I have outlined in my points 1,2, and 3 above.
Waiting . . .
I have. You still have not addressed it at all. You have completely ignored it and tried to reset the argument when I did. You ignore any actionable verbs in the sentence in favor of a possessive verb that does not even address the subject in question. That makes zero plausible sense.
Talk about waiting.
col_impact wrote: In the absence of any plausible alternatives my argument wins.
So, I win since I fully outlined everything in the Stubborn rule and you have yet to actually addressed, much less countered, it?
Thank you for finally admitting it. This will save so much time now.
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
"A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
Funny. i think you overlooked something. Adress tis point per point and show in specific where i am wrong. I did same with your argument.:
Spoiler:
_ghost_ wrote: "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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
col_impact why not sticking to your own words? disprove me. by doing it. not just claiming. I did some unterlining to show whitch of your words you should not forget. How comes that always someone brings a specific interpretation you over see it or just happen to ignore it at all?
col_impact wrote: You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
But I have done so here in this thread:
Charistoph wrote: 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.
So, it looks like I actually DID do what I said I did. You never addressed this. You dodged it instead of addressing it (which you accused me of doing) and tried to reset the discussion. _ghost_ even provided basic synopsis, which you did not address, either, but, true to form, ignored it, skipped it, and just carried on with accusations.
col_impact wrote: So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
I am waiting on you to actually recognize the words and grammar used in the BRB.
col_impact wrote: You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
That is because the rule itself does not confer, only its benefit or ability, using the language of the rule itself.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say the referenced rule is:
Banana When a group has at least one person with a banana when the whistle blows, they may take a lunch break. If they have a banana and an apple, they use the apple rule instead.
What is being conferred here?
1) A banana
2) A blowing whistle
3) A lunch break
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 15:22:43
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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC. Your inability to adhere to rules has been noted. You have a nice house rule. Talk to me when you want to talk about RAW.
_ghost_ wrote: so beside col_impact n some othere.. there is a conses on how this works?
Rules discussions are not settled by popular vote but by the validity of the argument.
If you want to overcome my argument, present a better argument and not one that merely caters to the Imperial armies.
Funny. i think you overlooked something. Adress tis point per point and show in specific where i am wrong. I did same with your argument.:
Spoiler:
_ghost_ wrote: "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."
Conditions in the rule:
a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Moment the rule applies:
When a unit ... takes Morale checks or Pinning tests
Result in the rule:
a unit ... they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers.
The condition written the way it is just states that a IC could transfer Stubborn to the unit. That's it. The moment a IC joins a unit it becomes a member of this unit for all rule purposes. This means when a unit has Stubborn a IC would automatically benefit of the effect.
Stubborn has two halves. One is when that rule can be used. There the "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" does clearly include ICs. But there is also the other part. Its effect.. and this part only mentions "Unit" as a instance. this col_impact is the part you tend to ignore. and this is also the part that fits perfectly with the rest of the IC rules. (" for all rule purposes")
You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
But go ahead and keep just stating you win. Anyone that bothers to read the thread carefully will know your argument is nothing but hot air. I am not trying to win the popular argument, but the truth of the matter. So keep going with your tobacco litigation. You have lots of Imperial die-hard support, but no actual support in the rules.
col_impact why not sticking to your own words? disprove me. by doing it. not just claiming. I did some unterlining to show whitch of your words you should not forget. How comes that always someone brings a specific interpretation you over see it or just happen to ignore it at all?
Point to the rules that talk about "conditions" and "effects".
I just see rules which define special rules as abilities.
So a model that has the Stubborn ability has the ability to ignore negative leadership when taking morale or leadership checks. Analysis done and strictly by the rules provided.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 15:50:02
col_impact wrote: You cannot just claim to have done something. You must actually do the thing you have claimed.
But I have done so here in this thread:
Charistoph wrote: 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.
So, it looks like I actually DID do what I said I did. You never addressed this. You dodged it instead of addressing it (which you accused me of doing) and tried to reset the discussion. _ghost_ even provided basic synopsis, which you did not address, either, but, true to form, ignored it, skipped it, and just carried on with accusations.
col_impact wrote: So waiting on you to actually present anything that adheres to the BRB.
I am waiting on you to actually recognize the words and grammar used in the BRB.
col_impact wrote: You have so far presented an argument that states that Stubborn does not actually confer and have failed to point to something "specified in the rule itself" that would allow special rules to confer. So you are completely in house rule land as you directly contradict the BRB.
That is because the rule itself does not confer, only its benefit or ability, using the language of the rule itself.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say the referenced rule is:
Banana When a group has at least one person with a banana when the whistle blows, they may take a lunch break. If they have a banana and an apple, they use the apple rule instead.
What is being conferred here?
1) A banana
2) A blowing whistle
3) A lunch break
Per the BRB . . .
1) Stubborn is conferred by the Stubborn rule
2) Special rules are abiltiies per the BRB definition.
3) "Specified in the rule itself" does not require exact referencing of the IC. If it did, it would say that. All that is required is something 'specified in the rule itself' which I pointed to. You have not pointed to anything so far or presented a wording of Stubborn which would block the conferring of Stubborn per the IC Special Rules rule. Your argument isn'e even worthy of consideration. File it under house rule.
col_impact wrote: Point to the rules that talk about "conditions" and "effects".
ICs and Ongoing Effects, for one.
Read the actual rule. It only deals with what happens when an IC leaves a unit that has been affected by a harmful or benefical effect from some entitiy's special rule (such as Blind) or joins a unit that has not been affected by a harmful/beneficial effect. It simply does not apply. We are talking about abilities per the BRB. You are trying to apply the wrong rule in the wrong circumstances and ignoring the actual definition of Special Rule. Nice house rule.
Reading the rule and actually applying it when appropriate is important. Weapons have the Blind ability that causes a harmful effect. 'Ability' does not equal 'effect'. And we know how the BRB defines Special Rules.
Spoiler:
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a
beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for
example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by
the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/01 16:02:33
nosferatu1001 wrote: "A unit" is as specific as "a unit that contains..." Neither specified the IC. Both require you to use the IC is a member of... Rule in order to know the IC is a part of the unit.
Done. My alternative is complete. Your concession is accepted.
The IC Special Rules ruled that special rules of the unit do not automatically confer to the IC. Your inability to adhere to rules has been noted. You have a nice house rule. Talk to me when you want to talk about RAW.
Dodging again I see
I pointed out the specification in Stubborn, and aske dyou to explain why you magically have required the "at least one model..." addenda, despite this being no more specific than "a unit with" as far as ICs go
in return I get this dodge of a response, and you hilariously talk about others inabilityt to adhere to rules?
Just stop. You lost credibility in rules arguments about 9 threads ago.
Guys - just ignore Col. they know theyre wrong, clearly, based on how often their argument has changed. Its just an attempt to drone on long enough that others may be convinced that Cols "argument" has merit. IT doesnt
Just let it be.
The RAW is well known in this thread, and has been proven.
I just see rules which define special rules as abilities.
as you say there are no conditions SR must be unconditional. This follows by using your logic
Model and Unit are the very same instance n thing
So a model that has the
Stubborn mentions the Unit as instance that makes these tests. these tests are usually done by using the highest leadership value present in that unit.
You mix up morale- pinning- and leadership tests
to ignore negative leadership when taking morale or leadership checks
Stubborn mentions morale and pinning tests only.
Analysis done and strictly by the rules provided.
I'd say analysis done and failed in at least 3 different critical points. Thus yous analysis cannot be strictly acording to provided rules
So you are disproved.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 16:13:13
