Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule prevents the ability of the special rule from being conferred to the IC by default and vice versa.

That does not separate it from the unit, though. That has been your assertion.

It does mean that the IC is not part of the unit for determining whether a special rule that is scoped by "a unit" freely applies to IC. Additional specifications must be met.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So whenever an IC joins a unit if all that is stated by the special rule is the general and non-specific "a unit . . ." the ability of the special rule is not conferred to the IC and vice versa.

That is an assumption with nothing to base it on. Remember, there are more Special Rules that affect only a model then affect a unit. The Independent Character Special Rules section is addressing ALL Special Rules. Nothing in there is specific to "unit-affecting" rules.

There are no model rules which would confer their ability to the IC so even if not explicitly stated we are really only dealing with unit special rules. Does the BRB also have to explicitly exclude weapon rules?

The IC Special Rules rule is referring to "the unit's special rules" and "a unit . . ." is not sufficient to confer the ability of the special rule to the IC. There needs to be additional specification (as in Stubborn).

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
However, the IC is always considered 'contained' in the unit for rules purposes.

Incorrect, as stated above. Nothing actually separates or "contains" the IC from the unit in Special Rules. He just doesn't get their Special Rules by default. He is still there. He is still part of the unit. Anything that affects the unit, should affect the IC as well.

The special rule does not affect the unit nor do they target the unit. You are making that up. That is some house rule you have.

Special rules are abilities, per the rules.

The ability of the special rule is conferred to the IC per the IC Special Rules rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So if there is a specific logical clause like "that contains at least one model" (ie specified as in Stubborn) then that additional specification overrides the default state of blocking of the conferring of special rules between units and any attached ICs and the ability of the special rule confers to the entire combined unit.

What you suggest is removing the block does not properly parse as doing so in basic English, though, nor is it ever specifically or explicitly referenced as doing so, and that is only part of the problem. Who has what does absolutely nothing to break barriers, nor does it include what is normally excluded.

If the IC is not considered wholly part of the unit before Stubborn, it will not be when Stubborn asks, "who as my special rule". The IC is still an outsider at this point, and not allowed to raise his hand. If he is considered part of the unit for Special Rules, then that phrase does nothing to include him, but will consider him to possibly the "model with this special rule".

You are confused. The words of the special rule never get applied to datasheet of the IC. Special Rules are abilities and it's the ability that gets conferred. The IC Special Rules rule means that by default the abilities stay put and don't get conferred to the IC unless certain criterion are met.

 Charistoph wrote:

Therefore, the only place which it can possibly state that Stubborn confers is when "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers". The "they" in question being the unit which fulfilled BOTH conditions. If the IC is a part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is part of the unit when a unique Special Rule states "the unit". If the IC is not part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is not part of the unit when they ignore negative leadership modifiers, nor when a unique Special Rule states "the unit".

You have failed to point to anything "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that could relate to anything aside from Stubborn. Congratulations. Only Stubborn works according to your paradigm.

The IC Special Rules rule simply looks for a logical clause like the one Stubborn has that provides additional specification beyond "a unit . . ." and applies the logic of that clause.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule prevents the ability of the special rule from being conferred to the IC by default and vice versa.

That does not separate it from the unit, though. That has been your assertion.

It does mean that the IC is not part of the unit for determining whether a special rule that is scoped by "a unit" freely applies to IC. Additional specifications must be met.

False. That is a fabrication. At no point is a separation between unit and IC stated or implied in the IC Special Rules section. "Conferring" is not about "inclusion" or the lack thereof by itself.

col_impact wrote:
There are no model rules which would confer their ability to the IC so even if not explicitly stated we are really only dealing with unit special rules. Does the BRB also have to explicitly exclude weapon rules?

That question is a bit of non-sequitur.

This rule is to prevent the transference of special rules between IC and unit. If this rule was not in place, someone could point at their datasheet and state, "It is now part of the unit, and the unit has Relentless on its datasheet".

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule is referring to "the unit's special rules" and "a unit . . ." is not sufficient to confer the ability of the special rule to the IC. There needs to be additional specification (as in Stubborn).

It does not state "a unit..." is insufficient, though. And Stubborn does not state any such specification without first including the IC as part of "a unit".

col_impact wrote:
The special rule does not affect the unit nor do they target the unit. You are making that up. That is some house rule you have.

I am not making that up. I gave you a list. Do you not remember? Amazing that you think that Special Rules do not affect the unit when so many specifically state that "a unit may do this".

col_impact wrote:
The ability of the special rule is conferred to the IC per the IC Special Rules rule.

Actually, the abilities of the special rules an IC has are conferred by their datasheet listing those Special Rules under the appropriate section.

The IC Special Rules section is all about conferring of Special Rules between IC and unit, not the IC itself.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So if there is a specific logical clause like "that contains at least one model" (ie specified as in Stubborn) then that additional specification overrides the default state of blocking of the conferring of special rules between units and any attached ICs and the ability of the special rule confers to the entire combined unit.

What you suggest is removing the block does not properly parse as doing so in basic English, though, nor is it ever specifically or explicitly referenced as doing so, and that is only part of the problem. Who has what does absolutely nothing to break barriers, nor does it include what is normally excluded.

If the IC is not considered wholly part of the unit before Stubborn, it will not be when Stubborn asks, "who as my special rule". The IC is still an outsider at this point, and not allowed to raise his hand. If he is considered part of the unit for Special Rules, then that phrase does nothing to include him, but will consider him to possibly the "model with this special rule".

You are confused. The words of the special rule never get applied to datasheet of the IC. Special Rules are abilities and it's the ability that gets conferred. The IC Special Rules rule means that by default the abilities stay put and don't get conferred to the IC unless certain criterion are met.

I am not confused. I understand perfectly what I am saying. You do not understand what I am saying, and that confuses you. You are talking about datasheets when I didn't mention them in what you quoted. My response here is talking about what it takes to remove that block and the associations that are in play.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Therefore, the only place which it can possibly state that Stubborn confers is when "they ignore negative Leadership modifiers". The "they" in question being the unit which fulfilled BOTH conditions. If the IC is a part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is part of the unit when a unique Special Rule states "the unit". If the IC is not part of "they" when the sentence begins, then it is not part of the unit when they ignore negative leadership modifiers, nor when a unique Special Rule states "the unit".

You have failed to point to anything "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)" that could relate to anything aside from Stubborn. Congratulations. Only Stubborn works according to your paradigm.

Actually, not even Stubborn works, really. It can only work if we consider the IC part of the unit from the beginning of the Special Rule, and the Special Rule addresses the unit (which includes the IC from the beginning) in its effect. That's hardly as specific as I would prefer. However, it does work with English better than a condition of possession, but it requires remembering a bunch of stuff not immediately related in Stubborn.

And I know I have mentioned this before in other threads, several times. So don't act so surprised.

col_impact wrote:
The IC Special Rules rule simply looks for a logical clause like the one Stubborn has that provides additional specification beyond "a unit . . ." and applies the logic of that clause.

And a clause asking for a condition of possession cannot logically be it. It carries nothing synonymous with something being given or granted. It is checking to see if such conferring has already taken place.

It doesn't actually have to be a clause of any type really, so long as we remember all the rules in context and not insert concepts that are never stated.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Zarrack, I assure you, pretty much NO ONE in person will give you this much crap about it. Show them the rules for Stubborn or Slow And Purposeful (Cataphractii Captains are your friends!) and they'll be fine with it.

Agreed. Most people, probably 99.44%, will let any special rule that says "a model containing at least one model with this abiility may..." transfer between the IC and the unit, because the IC rules indicate that (through saying Stubborn transfers, and this is the wording used in Stubborn, and the part in the IC rule saying they're part of the unit allows the transfer with a rule worded like that). In the main rulebook, I can't think of an exception to the rules saying either something like "a model containing at least one model with this ability" (like Stubborn) or "a unit composed entirely of models with this ability (like Fleet), so it will be obvious for those what should transfer. Getting into supplements it might not be as obvious; I don't think they've been as meticulous there (and the draft FAQ is making a hash of things with Bounding Lope, bringing on extra questions with its ruling there).

 doctortom wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Zarrack, I assure you, pretty much NO ONE in person will give you this much crap about it. Show them the rules for Stubborn or Slow And Purposeful (Cataphractii Captains are your friends!) and they'll be fine with it.

Agreed. Most people, probably 99.44%, will let any special rule that says "a model containing at least one model with this abiility may..." transfer between the IC and the unit, because the IC rules indicate that (through saying Stubborn transfers, and this is the wording used in Stubborn, and the part in the IC rule saying they're part of the unit allows the transfer with a rule worded like that). In the main rulebook, I can't think of an exception to the rules saying either something like "a model containing at least one model with this ability" (like Stubborn) or "a unit composed entirely of models with this ability (like Fleet), so it will be obvious for those what should transfer. Getting into supplements it might not be as obvious; I don't think they've been as meticulous there (and the draft FAQ is making a hash of things with Bounding Lope, bringing on extra questions with its ruling there).

True. My original point was how more about how screwed up the Draft FAQ made of things more than anything else. It was presented in dead pan, which does not translate well in text form without adding a proper marker.

 Charistoph wrote:
True. My original point was how more about how screwed up the Draft FAQ made of things more than anything else. It was presented in dead pan, which does not translate well in text form without adding a proper marker.

I think you've argued the point a little too heavily to claim sarcasm was the founding force behind it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
True. My original point was how more about how screwed up the Draft FAQ made of things more than anything else. It was presented in dead pan, which does not translate well in text form without adding a proper marker.

I think you've argued the point a little too heavily to claim sarcasm was the founding force behind it.

The original post was with dead pan.

Everything I have argued after that point was because people were presenting things as to "reasons" which did not fit the language presented in the rules themselves. For some of us, we've been over this too many times, and there are some sore spots.