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.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
If you continue to read the independent character rules, it goes on to specify the relationship between ICs, their unit, and special rules. Quote: "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."

So, the default question to the answer "does an IC get the special rule of the unit it is joined to" is NO - unless the rule allows it. And that is the eternal debate, same as the skyhammer. Is the rule worded in such a way to apply to the IC?

My personal opinion is that unless there is a clause that specifically allows sharing, or is worded like 'if one model has the rule, the entire unit benefits", than it's a no-go. And that interpretation is backed up from the direct rules quote above regarding the effect of special rules and ICs in units.

Thank you, Kap'n. That answers my question succinctly.

Wait no! No confered, but gains benefit of yes

well.

1. does a IC become a part of the unit when it joins?
--yes
2. Does the unit still be the same unit even with a joined IC?
--yes
3. Is the Wulfen Special rule a rule that the Unit has?
--yes
4. do we check on Unit or Model level when it comes to runing and/or charging?
--Unit level

so its absolutely clear that this works. the IC has no need to posses , or getting confered any Rule that affects just the unit it joins. because the moment the Ic joins the unit it counts as a full member of the unit.

MekLeN wrote:
Wait no! No confered, but gains benefit of yes

Read to the end of the ca rule.

a rule doesn't exist unless it is stated.

The one stated says unit.

I'm sold.

However, as I intend to have people to game with, I will defer to the tournament FAQ's they choose to follow, as this is the balancing act that GW doesn't provide with regularly errata'ing their rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, a the rule says perform a check upon being charged. If unit level is already engaged, the model doesn't provide the benefit of. Idk if this should be taken BRB-wide or simply within this Special Rule

using the logic that no special rules confer to special character sunder any circumstances unless the rule SPECIFICALLY says they do(which is not how the rule is even written by the way) mean that buffs that effect units in range of other units also do not effect special characters. And we all know that is not the case. Including the "cures of the wolfen" rule. So none of your IC's get that as well? How many other armies have rules JUST like that? so you are saying that NONE of those rules effect IC's? Because they are literally the same thing.

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
using the logic that no special rules confer to special character sunder any circumstances unless the rule SPECIFICALLY says they do(which is not how the rule is even written by the way) mean that buffs that effect units in range of other units also do not effect special characters. And we all know that is not the case. Including the "cures of the wolfen" rule. So none of your IC's get that as well? How many other armies have rules JUST like that? so you are saying that NONE of those rules effect IC's? Because they are literally the same thing.

Exactly! A ton of Special Rules do not work as they're clearly supposed to if you apply that logic, not just auras. The effect of Blind targets just "a unit", so ICs wouldn't be blinded even though the BRB clearly says they are - which can only be true if rules affecting units automatically include ICs.

Follow the house rulings // FAQ's if they're preferred. Be a good player, and a reasonable opponent.

However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.

MekLeN wrote:
However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.

This is pretty much what we have been saying.

Stubborn affects the unit. Counter-attack affects the model. Fleet affects the unit, but still requires all models to have it. Part of Move Through Cover affects the unit, while the other half affects the model.

The Wulfen special rule of the OP (and most of the Formation Special Rules like this) affects the unit.

Note a trend?

 Charistoph wrote:

MekLeN wrote:
However - if there isn't a ruling preference, then Unit is Unit, Model is Model, and joining a squad gains Unit-level benefits unless otherwise prevent BY the rules stating the exception along with the benefit.

This is pretty much what we have been saying.

Stubborn affects the unit. Counter-attack affects the model. Fleet affects the unit, but still requires all models to have it. Part of Move Through Cover affects the unit, while the other half affects the model.

The Wulfen special rule of the OP (and most of the Formation Special Rules like this) affects the unit.

Note a trend?

You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.

Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).

Special rules are abilities represented by the special rules themselves. We know this because the BRB defines them explicitly as such.


Stubborn is an ability. Counter-attack is an ability. Fleet is an ability. Move through cover is an ability.

Stubborn is an ability because the rules tell us that it is an ability.

Stubborn is conferred to the IC that joins a unit with the Stubborn ability because the rules tells us explicitly that this is the case.

Since special rules stand for the abilities themselves, the actual Stubborn ability is granted on the IC through the presence of "something specified in the rule itself" that specifically confers the special rule to the IC.

Per the IC Special Rules rule, the ability of the special rule is not conferred from the unit with the special rule to the IC unless the special rule includes something "specified in the rule itself" that specifically allows it.

The IC Special Rules rule sets the default for special rules of the unit to NOT confer to the attached ICs.

Therefore the IC Special Rules rule is an exception to the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". ICs are not considered part of the unit for the purpose of conferring special rules. In that circumstance, the IC Special Rules rule takes precedence and must be satisfied.

In order for the IC to get the ability of the special rule, the special rule must have something "specified in the rule itself" such as a clause like "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". The presence of an explicit clause like that one in the rule itself allows the special rule to be scoped to attached models which would logically include ICs.

So in short, in order for special rules to confer from the unit to the IC you must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule and point to something "specified in the rule itself" that logically gets past the default state of no conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC. You keep pointing to the ICs "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause but that has been overridden by the IC Special Rules rule in the case of the conferring of special rules of the unit onto the IC (and vice versa). Your stubborn refusal of this plain rules fact is nothing more than sheer stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge plainly written rules.

You and several others in this thread are confusing ability with effect. The rules don't allow you to confuse them. The rules are explicit about what special rules are so listen to the BRB and follow its definitions.

All special rules are abilities. Some special rules have as their ability the means to cause a harmful or beneficial effect (such as Blind) but special rules are always abilities and only a few of those abilities cause effects (and those effects are just effects and not the special rules themselves). The Blind special rule is an ability of a weapon or model to cause a harmful effect on a unit. The unit that is the target of the harmful effect does not have the Blind special rule in any shape or form, only the ongoing harmful effect.

If you do not adhere to the definitions that the rules provide then you are not RAW. Nice house rule you have there. So sure if you break away from the BRB definitions then you can pretty much house rule whatever you want.

But I will stick with the Rules as Written. Let me know when you want to discuss RAW.

col_impact wrote:
You are defining special rules in a way not defined by the rules and finding trends that are figments of your rogue interpretation and they are not supported by the rules themselves.

You dodge the direct response to this by responding to the short form?

col_impact wrote:
Special rules are not effects (and your defining them in this way is in direct contradiction to the BRB).

And again, like countless times we have stated, you are misrepresenting what we are saying. Part of your voodoo grammar, perhaps?

Did I say Special Rules are effects? No. I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.

Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.

Stubborn's ability is to allow the unit ignore negative Leadership Modifiers. The effect of Stubborn is "ignore negative Leadership Modifiers."

This has already been defined in my last direct response to you. Go back and address that if you choose to actually discuss it.

Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.

Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.

Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.

No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.

 Charistoph wrote:


I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.

Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.

Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).

This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.

You have absolutely nothing more than a House Rule and a weird House Rule at that - one that tries to force the rules of Ongoing Effects onto Special Rules.

Let me know when you want to discuss RAW. That means we stick with discussing what's in the BRB.

I simply point to where special rules are defined by the BRB to assert my claim that special rules are abilities represented by special rules.



That's the beauty of my argument. It is actually supported by the rules, and not some made-up hogwash.

Ye gods. Let it die.

The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ye gods. Let it die.

The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.

While I agree with your first statement your second is plainly untrue. No one has demonstrated permission for a rule to confer to all models in an unit by default without said rule stating it does , including an attached IC, in the context of the actual rules as written for ICe joining an unit with different special rules as laid out in the actual rulebook.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ye gods. Let it die.

The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.

While I agree with your first statement your second is plainly untrue. No one has demonstrated permission for a rule to confer to all models in an unit , including an attached IC, in the context of the actual rules as written for ICe joining an unit with different special rules as laid out in the actual rulebook.

...because no one has tried to. Only in your bizarre version of the thread. You're literally arguing something no one cares about.

A unit gains rules, as noted on the data sheet ref 10 is the unit. The IC joining does not alter the units name, identity etc. If the unit is affected, BY DEFINITION this doesn't alter if an IC joins. So the unit remains affected. In this case it means the unit may charge

So either argue the actual argument (for once) or, please, let it die.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ye gods. Let it die.

The raw has been shown over and over. It's only by denying the actual written words that you continue to argue this.

You don't know what RAW means then.

Your side has time and time again only presented a house rule and a very disingenuous one at that.

RAW means following the rules as written.

It means you don't apply the rules for Ongoing Effects to the rules for special rules. That obviously goes against the rules as they are written.

So far only myself and a few others have actually adhered to the rules as written.



Your side ignores plainly stated rules.




The reason this doesn't die is because your side is flat-out ignoring rules to try to gain an advantage (for the Imperium). While your views may be popular, they are against the rules, plain and simple.

I oppose those kind of shenanigans. Rules are rules and need to be adhered to.

You've dodged every direct question , so don't try to claim any high ground.

so a special rule csnnot grant an ongoing effect? Interesting if wrong position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You've dodged every direct question , so don't try to claim any high ground.

so a special rule csnnot grant an ongoing effect? Interesting if wrong position.

Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.

You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.


The BRB includes rules for Special Rules and ICs which governs whether the ability of the special rules of the unit are granted to the attached IC.

You must follow that rule.


I have dodged no questions. You have merely stated I have dodged questions (as a disruptive tactic) when I show you the rules that you cannot ignore.

You are in fact the one who keeps dodging rules plainly stated.

And I will claim the high ground since I am in fact one of the few who is indeed adhering to the rules.

blaktoof wrote:Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.

Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.

Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.

No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.

col_impact wrote:Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.

You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.

We are not confusing anything, and you all are not even understanding what is being stated as you keep taking it off on to an unstated tangent. So who is really confused here?

An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.

A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.

Do not be too rigid in your definitions, you are often losing the forest for the poplars.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.

Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.

Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).

It is a simple fact by simple review of the special rules. Not everything needs to be printed jot and tittle, and can be surmised by a logical review.

Stubborn has a target, "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test" as designated by the later "they" which precedes the effect. It has a trigger, "takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test". It has an effect, "ignore negative Leadership modifiers".

If you do not think this applies, address it properly. Do not ignore it, do not dodge it, face it head on.

col_impact wrote:This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.

I have no cronies. I do not pay anyone to respond, nor have any of them offered themselves in servitude to me.

Considering you have not used any argument, much less proper logic and grammar, to counter any of my analysis's of the Stubborn rule, and you insist on using verbs whose meaning does not apply for your analysis, I can easily say that you are the one prepared to cleanse porcine.

 Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Special rules are not ongoing effects despite your numerous times to define them as such while then claiming you are not.

Ongoing effects and special rules are clearly shown to be two separate things within the rules as they are addressed seperately under psychic powers as well as the rules for independent characters.please refer to ICs and special rules followed by a seperate rules section called ICs and ongoing effects.

Having a special rule is not being being affected by it as an ongoing effect. Your continued attempts to try and assert this are patently incorrect and against the rules as written.

No where at all within the rules for 40k are special rules described as, construed to be, or stated as being ongoing effects.

col_impact wrote:Special rules are abilities. The BRB tells us this flat out.

You are confusing ability with ongoing effect.

We are not confusing anything, and you all are not even understanding what is being stated as you keep taking it off on to an unstated tangent. So who is really confused here?

An ability is "Possession of the means or skill to do something". An effect is a "change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause". So, an effect is the what happens when an ability is used.

A Special Rule's ability may have an effect on the unit. It's one of those things called a "component" or part of a Special Rule. Every Special Rule establishes a target, timing, and an effect. The target in Stubborn is stated in that phrase you love so much. The timing in Stubborn is when the target takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test. The effect of Stubborn is ignoring negative Leadership Modifiers.

Do not be too rigid in your definitions, you are often losing the forest for the poplars.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I said that special rules affect something. That "affect" is what the Special Rule possesses that defines the actions and results of the Special Rule.

Remember, Special Rules are composed with three components: Target, timing, and effect.

Can you point me to the part of the rulebook where this is discussed? Page and paragraph please. I eagerly await your pointing me to where the BRB discusses the three components of a special rule (target, timing, and effect).

It is a simple fact by simple review of the special rules. Not everything needs to be printed jot and tittle, and can be surmised by a logical review.

Stubborn has a target, "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test" as designated by the later "they" which precedes the effect. It has a trigger, "takes a Morale Check or Pinning Test". It has an effect, "ignore negative Leadership modifiers".

If you do not think this applies, address it properly. Do not ignore it, do not dodge it, face it head on.

col_impact wrote:This is utterly and completely made-up hogwash by you and your cronies.

I have no cronies. I do not pay anyone to respond, nor have any of them offered themselves in servitude to me.

Considering you have not used any argument, much less proper logic and grammar, to counter any of my analysis's of the Stubborn rule, and you insist on using verbs whose meaning does not apply for your analysis, I can easily say that you are the one prepared to cleanse porcine.

So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.

Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.

How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in the BRB?





I will stick to the rules as written. Let me know when you have something to contribute along those lines. So far you have shown me nothing.

If you want me to address your particular house rule go ahead and post it in the proposed rules section and I will happily address it there. Who knows, maybe you have some good ideas for some proposed rules.

col_impact wrote:
So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.

Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.

This from one who thinks that "contains a model with this special rule" means "include the Independent Character with this special rule"

And watch, how he ignores what has been said and goes off on his tangent with no relation in regards to what has been stated as if it was important.

col_impact wrote:
How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in 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.

Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.

I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.

Stubborn affects the unit. Yes, or no?

Doe Blind affect a unit. Yes, or no?

Is Blind a Special Rule? Yes, or no?

As before. Let this die. Col and Blaktoof cannot possibly persuade, as they refuse to use the printed rules, and instead their own logic grammar and even changing the words used to suit. It's a pointless argument.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So you admit to having no rules justification for your 'components of the special rule'. Thank you for your concession as you have obviously strayed outside of rules as written.

Any rationale based on "target", "timing", and "effect" can be safely filed away as the irrelevant musings of Charistoph and can be definitively treated as house rules.

This from one who thinks that "contains a model with this special rule" means "include the Independent Character with this special rule"

And watch, how he ignores what has been said and goes off on his tangent with no relation in regards to what has been stated as if it was important.

col_impact wrote:
How about instead of making stuff up you look to the actual rules in 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.

Did I ever once deny that Special Rules are an ability? No, I did not. Did I ever state that Special Rules are an effect? No, I did not.

I said that Special Rules possessed effects, which is true according to the definition of effect provided. And these effects sometimes are focused/targeted on the unit and not the model.

Stubborn affects the unit. Yes, or no?

Doe Blind affect a unit. Yes, or no?

Is Blind a Special Rule? Yes, or no?

Yup you are confusing ability with affect.

Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.

Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As before. Let this die. Col and Blaktoof cannot possibly persuade, as they refuse to use the printed rules, and instead their own logic grammar and even changing the words used to suit. It's a pointless argument.

I use nothing but the printed rules.

In fact, your side has been ignoring rules and inserting inappropriate definitions and when confronted by rules that you cannot ignore seek to shut down the discussion.

Unless you have something constructive to add to the thread, keep your comments to yourself.

This is a discussion of RAW.

Yes, and raw is that the special rule affecting the unit cares not if an IC joins the unit. As the unit never changes

As for using printed rules, Is that the same as when you decided confer didn't mean confer, but something else? And then changed your mind when that still didn't help your argument. Or how about when you decide - using no printed rule, just your own ideas- that "contains" is required, when it is no more specific than "unit with" is.

But hey. Pretend your argument has any basis in reality and logic. That's your prerogative. Just it isn't raw. It never will be raw (as currently written) and frankly is a waste of time posting about it. You have zero credibility.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and raw is that the special rule affecting the unit cares not if an IC joins the unit. As the unit never changes

As for using printed rules, Is that the same as when you decided confer didn't mean confer, but something else? And then changed your mind when that still didn't help your argument. Or how about when you decide - using no printed rule, just your own ideas- that "contains" is required, when it is no more specific than "unit with" is.

But hey. Pretend your argument has any basis in reality and logic. That's your prerogative. Just it isn't raw. It never will be raw (as currently written) and frankly is a waste of time posting about it. You have zero credibility.

Special rules are abilities per the rules. Special rules do not affect the unit. Special rules are abilities that the unit has. A few special rules (like Blind) have abilities that can negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

An IC that joins the unit only gets the ability of the unit if it satisfies the IC Special Rules rule.


This is the rule that you choose to flat out ignore. Therefore your argument is entirely against the rules.

The IC Special Rules rule has set it so that by default the IC does not get the special rules of the unit.

This means that the IC does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of determining if the special rules of the unit are conferred to the IC.

This means that as far as the conferring of special rules to the IC , the IC's "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is being overridden by the the IC Special Rules rule in the case of special rules of the unit conferring to the IC.

In order for an IC to get the special rules of the unit it must satisfy the IC Special Rules rule which means that the special must provide something "specified in the rule itself" that confers the special rule to the IC.

Simply specifying "unit" is not enough. The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of conferring the special rules of the unit.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" incorporates models attached to that collective (in this case a unit) and so the IC Special Rules rule is satisfied and the IC gets the Stubborn ability.

A collective (in this case a unit) "that contains at least one model with the special rule" is a lot more specific than "a unit with the special rule" in the case of determining whether special rules are conferred to the IC and in fact only the former will satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.

The IC is not considered part of the unit for the purposes of determining if special rules are conferred, but a logical clause like "[a collective] that contains at least one model with the special rule" will specifically incorporate him along with any other attached models.


#################################################

Nosferatu, please mark your comments as HYWPI.

Only my argument is RAW.

You choose to flat-out ignore this rule.



I don't ignore that rule.

col_impact wrote:
Yup you are confusing ability with affect.

Ability is a noun. Affect is being used as a verb. Effect is being used as the noun form of the verb affect. Definitions having been provided and not refuted. Who is confused?

Let me demonstrate:

col_impact wrote:
Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.

Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.

Blind is a Special Rule which affects the unit which you just admitted, as highlighted. Stubborn is an ability which affects the unit, as noted numerous times.

You are the one who seem to not be able to separate effect and ability, since we are not combining them, as we have demonstrated.

Please do not try this tact of ignoring what the other person actually posts and taking it in the wrong direction. You've done it numerous times already, and it has reached well beyond trollish levels.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yup you are confusing ability with affect.

Ability is a noun. Affect is being used as a verb. Effect is being used as the noun form of the verb affect. Definitions having been provided and not refuted. Who is confused?

Let me demonstrate:

col_impact wrote:
Per the rules, Stubborn is an ability. If an IC joins a unit with the Stubborn ability then the IC gets that ability. The IC is not affected by Stubborn. Rather the IC gets the ability when the IC joins the unit and loses the ability when the IC leaves the unit.

Per the rules, Blind is an ability that models or weapons have. If a model with the Blind ability hits an enemy unit there is a negative effect that it can bestow on that unit, but that negative effect is not the Blind special rule in any shape or form.

Blind is a Special Rule which affects the unit which you just admitted, as highlighted. Stubborn is an ability which affects the unit, as noted numerous times.

You are the one who seem to not be able to separate effect and ability, since we are not combining them, as we have demonstrated.

Please do not try this tact of ignoring what the other person actually posts and taking it in the wrong direction. You've done it numerous times already, and it has reached well beyond trollish levels.

Incorrect.

Your confusion continues.

And what you have highlighted in my post really only highlights your continued confusion and my correct usage.

Stick to what the BRB tells us.

Stubborn is an ability per the rules.

Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.

The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.

Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.

My argument is in full compliance with BRB definitions and usage.

I suggest you adhere to BRB definitions and usage because, until you do, your argument is just going to be continually filed under House Rule.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect.

Your confusion continues.

And what you have highlighted in my post really only highlights your continued confusion and my correct usage.

Stick to what the BRB tells us.

Stubborn is an ability per the rules.

Blind is an ability per the rules as well. A few special rules (like Blind) are abilities that are specifically permitted to negatively or beneficially affect something, but that is a specified feature of that specific ability and is not the special rule itself which is an ability per the rules.

You keep confusing Blind the ability with the negative effect (which is not Blind) that the Blind ability can have on enemy units it hits. The enemy unit a Blind model hits does not get the Blind ability in any shape or form. It merely gets the specified negative effect.

The Blind special rule is an ability. Blind does not affect the model with the special rule Blind. The Blind special rule is an ability of the model and that particular ability has the means to negatively affect enemy units. Those enemy units never get the Blind ability.

Until you can keep the distinction between ability, affect, and effect clear you are not in compliance with the rules and have no argument worthy of serious consideration.

My argument is in full compliance with BRB definitions and usage.

I suggest you adhere to BRB definitions and usage because, until you do, your argument is just going to be continually filed under House Rule.

And so he continues in the same rut not paying any attention to what is actually stated. I'd rather talk to Zathras, he makes more sense. And this is just becoming redundant comedy of misunderstanding, only bad.

 Charistoph wrote:

And so he continues in the same rut not paying any attention to what is actually stated. I'd rather talk to Zathras, he makes more sense. And this is just becoming redundant comedy of misunderstanding, only bad.

I was correct in my response and exact in my use of the rules. If you want to leave the conversation because I have torn your argument to shreds and you have nothing left to say then that is fine. Feel free to pretend I am misunderstanding you.