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: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.

Quite incorrect. You have misinterpreted what I have stated even after having been given a definition of what I had said and you have not refuted.

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.

I have repeatedly stated:

Charistoph wrote: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.

Charistoph wrote: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?

Yet, all you have responded with, in essence is:

col_impact wrote: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.

I have made a proper distinction between ability, affect, and effect. This distinction is provided by the central diction authority of the writer's home country, since the rulebook has made zero attempts to redefine these words.

An ability contains an effect. An ability affects something. Do you see the distinction? Probably not since you are using your voodoo grammar decoder.

Blind affects a unit targeted by the possessor of the rule. Stubborn affects a unit that possesses the rule.

You however, have paid as much attention to what has been written to counter you as you have made to the words in the rules. Have fun kicking your pricks.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote: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.

Quite incorrect. You have misinterpreted what I have stated even after having been given a definition of what I had said and you have not refuted.

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.

I have repeatedly stated:

Charistoph wrote: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.

Charistoph wrote: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?

Yet, all you have responded with, in essence is:

col_impact wrote: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.

I have made a proper distinction between ability, affect, and effect. This distinction is provided by the central diction authority of the writer's home country, since the rulebook has made zero attempts to redefine these words.

An ability contains an effect. An ability affects something. Do you see the distinction? Probably not since you are using your voodoo grammar decoder.

Blind affects a unit targeted by the possessor of the rule. Stubborn affects a unit that possesses the rule.

You however, have paid as much attention to what has been written to counter you as you have made to the words in the rules. Have fun kicking your pricks.

The dictionary is not a rules source.

The dictionary can only act as a supplement to the rules.

And even so, abilities are not effects. If you have a sharpshooting ability does that mean sharpshooting affects you? No, the latter part of the sentence doesn't even make sense.

You are trying to twist meanings around so you can declare all special rules as ongoing effects so you ignore the IC Special Rules rule.

Sorry but you can't do that. Quit trying to circumvent plainly stated rules. Quit abusing the rules. Quit twisting meanings around.

Follow the rules and adhere to the definitions and usage of words in the BRB.

You need to point to rules to support what you say.

Stubborn is an ability per the rules. If someone has the Stubborn ability are the affected by Stubborn? No.

They simply are Stubborn - they have the Stubborn ability and enjoy the benefits of being Stubborn.

Co;l - your concession on this topic is noted. Your avoidance is now just comical.

RAW is proven. For anyone else who has bothered to get this far, talk to your gaming group-, otherwise the raw is pretty simple, some just dont seem to like the consequences of it, and will do ANYTHING to argue against it.

i agree to this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Co;l - your concession on this topic is noted. Your avoidance is now just comical.

RAW is proven. For anyone else who has bothered to get this far, talk to your gaming group-, otherwise the raw is pretty simple, some just dont seem to like the consequences of it, and will do ANYTHING to argue against it.

Your content-less disruptive comment is noted.

RAW is proven by me. I am the one with the RAW argument

If you want to claim a RAW argument then you will have to actually present a RAW argument.

That means not ignoring this rule.


As long as you ignore that rule you cannot claim RAW.

Simply voting or claiming that you have a RAW argument is not enough. You have to actually prove your argument like I did.

I recently provided a synopsis to my argument here . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/680707.page#8504956

You will note that my argument adheres to the rules and is supported by the rules.

Try doing that.

Everyone need to follow the rules HERE on DAKKA DAKKA - the rules that EVERYONE agreed to follow when they signed up here.

ESPECIALLY RULE #1.

My argument adheres to all the rules. It just doesn't make up this idea that "contains" is a requirement or that it any more "specifies" the IC thatpn "a unit". Of course, you know my argument follows all the rules, and that yours literally alters the actual written words to suit your position. Everyone here also knows this.

Ignore mode. Pointless dialogue of the deaf.

So, this is that last time I am going to post on this. A few people are intentionally ignoring parts of rules in favor for other sentences, you have to use the entire rule if you are going to quote RAW. NOT just the part that you think is relevant and stop reading after that.

The Rule for IC's in units. They become part of the unit for rules purposes.




The rule for special rules.



Normally yes, as stated most special rules do not confer to or from the IC. However the part that matters most in the last line, which is what keeps getting ignored. it states VERY specifically that " Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them."

The rule for Bounding lope states:



This specifically refers to the unit. Which by RAW that IC's IS part of! and under the IC special rules section it refers to Special rules that confer to the unit. "" Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them." stated again just incase you missed it.

Now in all situations no special rules do not confer to the unit, however this is a rule that SPECIFICALLY says it does. You refer to RAW but conveniently ignore parts of a rule. You CAN NOT claim to be RAW and then leave out parts of the rule. That final line gives special rules that specifically state that they confer to confer to the IC AS part of the unit. PERIOD. Willful ignorance will not change that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you go threw special rules, they specifically address this in many of the rules that refer to the unit. for example :


is widely accepted to confer to the unit. HOWEVER it has the same wording. Referring to the unit. so the argument that this one does not, with the same wording holds no water.

Sorry to interrupt here, but Hatred was probably not the best example to demonstrate your point. Hatred only applies to the model, as stated in the last line of the rule. An IC that doesn't have Hatred would not get Hatred joining a unit with it as the wording clearly indicates "model", not "unit".

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Sorry to interrupt here, but Hatred was probably not the best example to demonstrate your point. Hatred only applies to the model, as stated in the last line of the rule. An IC that doesn't have Hatred would not get Hatred joining a unit with it as the wording clearly indicates "model", not "unit".

Hatred actually applies to a unit, the context in which it speaks about a model is referring to a model attacking, not only that model having the special rule. As the rule says the unit has hatred.

 Alpharius wrote:
Everyone need to follow the rules HERE on DAKKA DAKKA - the rules that EVERYONE agreed to follow when they signed up here.

ESPECIALLY RULE #1.

Why hasnt this been locked? It is literally the exact same arguments that were locked in the 20 page thread currently on page 5.

We are debating a rule, which is what this thread is for. I don't think i have been belligerent or hateful in anyway, i don't see how rule #1 has been broken, at least on my end. I don't recall saying anything

Many intelligent minds have come together on this, we have established two main considerations to ponder:
- IC's do gain the units ability to Run and Charge.
- IC's prevent the Wulfen from Run and Charge if they join the unit.

We have gone beyond statement, to pointing out specifics as to why and how and where, to each of these.

Our further consideration hasn't yielded further light as to a definitive Yes or No, but of perspectives that in each regard can be seen as valid - dependingly.

I can, and I don't think I'm alone here, now take these thoughts to the Table and share each with my opponents - and we'll be able to come down on one side or the other; I doubt I'll find the same conclusion with every opponent I face, and I'm not exactly sure if I'm down for "when in doubt, don't" as that's a sad way to enjoy a game.

I will do my research on what the main Tournament FAQ's have to say, and if we as players still cannot find a final determination (as my friends enjoy truth over ease, typically hehe) then we'll roll off on it and let this be our determination.

Warmachine is made by a company who cares much more than GW of their players best interests, wishes to develop well rounded, sound, game design.

It's on 'Page 5' that if a rule isn't a simple yes or no, roll off on it and let the game continue! To which, I wholeheartedly agree.
I will also say, that no one will have fun playing a player who's interested more in yammering out textual arguments over their own feelings/considerations, and that though they may choose to go ahead and deal with a game wouldn't feel so inclined to play any further games with such an individual.

I will not be depending on this rule for my games, for my friends sake and for my own as well...

Keep an imperfect game, as a game please. I ask this on behalf of all 40k'ers everywhere who also have to deal with an imperfect game created by a money-driven developer, though so incredibly fun (!) Let's just play ball!

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
We are debating a rule, which is what this thread is for. I don't think i have been belligerent or hateful in anyway, i don't see how rule #1 has been broken, at least on my end. I don't recall saying anything

I don't think Fragile's statement was directed at you, Dyslexican.

Bounding Lope: This UNIT can Run and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed charge rolls. Bounding Lope is not a Special Rule. It's an ability in the unit's codex entry. It doesn't need to confer, A because it's not a Special Rule and B, because the IC for all rules purposes is no longer a separate entity as long as he/she is a part of the UNIT he/she joined. A Special Rule, as defined by the BRB, and found in the "Special Rules" section of the BRB, like FnP, which a Wulfen MODEL has, as listed in it's codex entry, is not conferred to an IC joining the unit. The difference is night and day.

Oh absolutely. The difference is startling, but apparently not to some.

LinkXx wrote:
Bounding Lope: This UNIT can Run and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed charge rolls. Bounding Lope is not a Special Rule. It's an ability in the unit's codex entry. It doesn't need to confer, A because it's not a Special Rule and B, because the IC for all rules purposes is no longer a separate entity as long as he/she is a part of the UNIT he/she joined. A Special Rule, as defined by the BRB, and found in the "Special Rules" section of the BRB, like FnP, which a Wulfen MODEL has, as listed in it's codex entry, is not conferred to an IC joining the unit. The difference is night and day.

Incorrect. Check the rules for datasheets.

It is definitely a special rule and as such it is of course subject to the IC Special Rules rule which requires you to point to something "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" to allow the ability to confer to attached ICs.

Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.

In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.

In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....

Let him have it. It was at least accurate without trying to define it. He was correcting the concept that Bounding Lope was not a Special Rule, which was incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which unit does do. As you well know. Because you cannot point to specific wording specifically requiring "contains, 'unit " is AS specific as contains - given NEITHER specifically calls out an IC.

In addition we know units declare charges, not models. Nothing stops the unit declaring....

Incorrect.

"A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.

Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.

We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.

Fragile wrote:
Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.

We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.

Those two aren't connected.

The IC Special Rules rule provides specific exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of special rules of the unit.



Are you able to point to a specific rule which would allow IC psykers to be considered separate for some rules purposes while attached to a unit like I am able to in the case of special rules and the IC Special Rules rule?

col_impact wrote:
"A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.

And yet, the "contains at least one model" doesn't include the IC at all, so that obviously isn't the key phrase for the IC to benefit from it, either. It can only be found when the unit ignores negative leadership Modifiers, and the IC counts as part of that unit.

But we've been over that so many times by now, I guess some people just can't leave well enough alone.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"A unit that contains at least one model . . ." is much more specific than "a unit". It is clear that "a unit that contains at least one model . . . " will include in its scope models that are attached to the unit. The IC is an attached model to the unit.

And yet, the "contains at least one model" doesn't include the IC at all, so that obviously isn't the key phrase for the IC to benefit from it, either. It can only be found when the unit ignores negative leadership Modifiers, and the IC counts as part of that unit.

But we've been over that so many times by now, I guess some people just can't leave well enough alone.

Incorrect. "Contains at least one model" is scoped to include the IC as the rule scans for which models have the special rule. "Contains" looks beyond the original unit and considers models attached to the unit (which the IC is) even in the case where the IC is not considered wholly a part of the unit (such as in the case of conferring special rules). This is very basic set logic which I guess you need a refresher on. But we have already been over how you don't adhere to logic.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Either you accept that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes making things like Bounding Lope work, but making IC Psykers not work, or you accept that ICs dont lose their own unit status despite being part of another unit, in which case Bounding Lope doesnt work and Psykers do work.

We are all arguing about how to patch together shoddy writing.

Those two aren't connected.

The IC Special Rules rule provides specific exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" in the case of special rules of the unit.

Spoiler:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Are you able to point to a specific rule which would allow IC psykers to be considered separate for some rules purposes while attached to a unit like I am able to in the case of special rules and the IC Special Rules rule?

You completely miss the point.

You cannot have the rules both ways. So your stance is that a Psyker IC cannot manifest powers ?

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. "Contains at least one model" is scoped to include the IC as the rule scans for which models have the special rule. "Contains" looks beyond the original unit and considers models attached to the unit (which the IC is) even in the case where the IC is not considered wholly a part of the unit (such as in the case of conferring special rules). This is very basic set logic which I guess you need a refresher on. But we have already been over how you don't adhere to logic.

"Contains at least one model" is a phrase to check if possession is already established, not seeking to provide it to others.

"Contains at least one model" only considers the IC IF the IC possesses the rule initially. If the IC does not have the rule, then it is a phrase not referencing the IC at all and so therefore not including them, period.

The only portion that an IC without the rule can be referenced in "a unit which contains at least one model with this special rule" is in the very first portion of "a unit". And even that condition has to be established prior to referencing this rule via the IC's Joining and Leaving a Unit rules.

"Contains" = possession established, not possession shared. Hard to use base logic to go against the actual words provided, but you seem to want to continue doing that. Unless you want to properly quote and reference that states that "contains" is provided an actual different definition by the rulebook, we'll consider this done.

So, once again just stomping all over very well trampled territory.

Moving on.