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.
Ok so here's a complex situation. Say you have the following list:
Ultra marines skyhammer annihilation force
Couple asm squads with stuff
Couple dev squads with stuff in pods
Relevant special rules to the situation: whole formation chooses to come in turn 1 or 2, no roll required, asm must DS and can assault the turn they arrive, they can also use packs in both move and assault every turn a la Raven guard.
Blood Angels Golden Host
Dante as warlord: certain units (jump infantry among them) in Dante's detachment reroll reserve rolls and scatter 1d6 less on DS.
couple sanguinary guard units
Relevant special rules: units must be in DS reserve, whole formation may choose to come in on any turn starting from 2, may charge after deep strike but it is considered disordered.
Ok now...I go to deployment and declare that I want the skyhammer to come in turn one, and join Dante as a battle brother to one of the asm squads.
-Does that asm unit with Dante still come in turn one, or does he drag them back to turn two, or does the whole unit get confused by multiple formation rules and just roll for reserve normally?
-Does the rest of the SG show up if Dante is pulled in early?
-Does the joined asm unit receive -1d6 scatter from Dante's WL trait applying to himself?
-Can the unit charge the turn it comes in?
-Does the charge count as disordered for the whole unit or just Dante?
-Can the asm "RG pack ability" make the charge rerollable?
Good luck, please cite rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 22:23:56
This may help. From the Codex Space Marines Draft FAQ:
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
niv-mizzet wrote: Ok so here's a complex situation. Say you have the following list:
Ultra marines skyhammer annihilation force
Couple asm squads with stuff
Couple dev squads with stuff in pods
Relevant special rules to the situation: whole formation chooses to come in turn 1 or 2, no roll required, asm must DS and can assault the turn they arrive, they can also use packs in both move and assault every turn a la Raven guard.
Blood Angels Golden Host
Dante as warlord: certain units (jump infantry among them) in Dante's detachment reroll reserve rolls and scatter 1d6 less on DS.
couple sanguinary guard units
Relevant special rules: units must be in DS reserve, whole formation may choose to come in on any turn starting from 2, may charge after deep strike but it is considered disordered.
Ok now...I go to deployment and declare that I want the skyhammer to come in turn one, and join Dante as a battle brother to one of the asm squads.
A lot is going to depend on which standards you are going to abide by. The standards presented by the rulebook (standard 1) or the conflicting standards provided by the Draft FAQ (standard 2). There is also tournament circuit standards, but those are too numerous and specific to bother going through, and they answer these questions themselves.
Also be aware that a certain Ignored One will try to come in and argue with me on this. I will not answer his posts as a result of Ignoring him. If you want to know my answer to his questions, just ask me and I will answer them.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does that asm unit with Dante still come in turn one, or does he drag them back to turn two, or does the whole unit get confused by multiple formation rules and just roll for reserve normally?
Standard 1: Dante is not operating as his own unit, but as part of the ASM unit. Any rule he possesses that affect a unit from his original detachment will not affect anything in this unit, but anything that the unit possesses and affects the unit will affect him. In short, no to the Golden Host, yes, to the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. This has to do with how the rules for Independent Characters operate and interact with units and their Special Rules, specifically noting how Stubborn affects everyone.
Standard 2: Dante doesn't come from the Annihilation Force and the ASM do not come from the Golden Host so they do not benefit from each others' rules. This either means they are like Fleet so nothing works or you have them come in on turn 2 so both of their rules can work together without interfering with each other.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the rest of the SG show up if Dante is pulled in early?
Standard 1: It depends on how the rule is stated and how you bring them in. But again, Dante would not be operating as his own unit from his detachment, but as part of another detachment.
Standard 2: Again, it depends on how the rule is stated about how you determine to bring them in. Better to just have them all come in on turn 2 so both of their rules can work together with each other without interfering.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the joined asm unit receive -1d6 scatter from Dante's WL trait applying to himself?
Standard 1: No, the unit is not part of Dante's detachment even though Dante is in the unit.
Standard 2: No, the unit is not part of Dante's detachment, so the ASM would not benefit, though apparently the IC can? As I said, the Draft FAQ can be conflicting with itself.
Standard 1: The same answer as for the first for the same reason.
Standard 2: Yes, sort of. They both have the capacity to do so, so should be fine.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the charge count as disordered for the whole unit or just Dante?
Standard 1: Dante's detachment rules affecting their units do not matter to the Codex Marine unit he joins since it is not their unit.
Standard 2: Dante would be, but not the ASM units. Dante is from the detachment that affects it, the ASM are not. Or something else weird that is only explainable by drunken monkeys with a dart board.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Can the asm "RG pack ability" make the charge rerollable?
Standard 1: Yes. It is a rule that affects the unit, and it would be a Raven Guard unit.
Standard 2: Yes. Jump Pack Charge rerolls can affect the whole unit, even if some of the models aren't Jump.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 00:09:20
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.
Thank you for that professional in depth answer Charistoph. All your answers seem sound and legitimate, at least until the day that the FAQ's become more comprehensive and less contradictory.
There is only one answer to each question when you apply the BRB and the Draft FAQ for clarification. What Charistoph provides as 'Standard 1' is actually his personal house rule. Feel free to adopt Charistoph's house rule but do know that it is just a house rule and by no means standard.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does that asm unit with Dante still come in turn one, or does he drag them back to turn two, or does the whole unit get confused by multiple formation rules and just roll for reserve normally?
Dante drags them to turn 2. If Dante joins the asm unit then that prevents the asm unit from arriving on turn one. Per the BRB and the Draft FAQ, rules that are simply stated "the unit . . ." do not confer their abilities to attached Independent Characters.
Charistoph would have you believe that the BRB contradicts the Draft FAQ on this point. However, that has never been the case. The Draft FAQ merely contradicts his set of house rules. Check out the lengthy explanation in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
Let's dig in and fully explicate why an Independent Character attached to a unit in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force does not get the Skyhammer Annihilation Force unit's special rules.
Consider the case of a 3 man unit of Crisis Suits which I think sheds light on the issues involved. You purchase Vectored Retro-thrusters for one of the models giving that model Hit & Run and Fleet. So basically you have a model that has Hit & Run and Fleet, but you don't have a unit that has Hit & Run and Fleet.
The thing to determine is if the ability of the special rule on that model confers to the unit or not.
Hit & Run reads "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ." meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will confer to the unit and the unit will have the Hit & Run ability.
Fleet reads "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will not confer to the unit and the unit will not have the Fleet ability.
The use of the indefinite article in "a unit" means that "a unit" itself is being used in a non-specific, general way. If all one says is "a unit" then nothing is being specified at all about "a unit". "A unit" can refer to a unit as described on an Army List Entry or it can refer to a unit with an Independent Character attached to it or it can refer to a unit that is shooting, or a Deathmark unit, etc.
But, we aren't just dealing with "a unit". We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
#############################
So now let's consider the case of an Independent Character attached to 3 man unit of Crisis Suits where one model has Hit & Run and Fleet.
Essentially it works out the same way as when only one model in a unit has a special rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule simply reinforces the way the ability of a special rule propagates through a unit that is heterogeneous with respect to a special rule.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The Special Rules rule requires that a special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Hit & Run, we have already identified that something to be the dependent adjectival clause ("that contains at least one model with this special rule"). Not only is the clause worded the same as Stubborn but it also works to the same effect (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to). We are simply dealing with the same specified kind of unit that we are dealing with in the case of Stubborn while we are determining what kind of unit will get the ability of the special rule.
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies the rule entirely.
#############################
Okay. So far so good. These are the results one would expect based on our discussion of the 3 man unit of Crisis Suits.
But what happens in the case of a rule like Objective Secured?
Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.
In the case of Objective Secured, the troop unit has the special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the Objective Secured ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the troop unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the Objective Secured ability since the Special Rules rule was not satisfied. So if only the Independent Character is in range of an objective then it cannot take control of the objective away from non Objective Secured units.
The Draft FAQ merely validates what I and several others have been arguing for quite some time now.
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the rest of the SG show up if Dante is pulled in early?
Nope. Dante can't be pulled in early.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the joined asm unit receive -1d6 scatter from Dante's WL trait applying to himself?
Nope. The Warlord trait applies only to units in Dante's detachment which the asm unit definitely is not.
Yes, provided it is turn 2 and not a turn 1 Deep Strike.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Does the charge count as disordered for the whole unit or just Dante?
Per the Character and Moving rules and the Draft FAQ, Dante and the asm each use their respective rules for charging. So only Dante will have a disordered charge.
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Spoiler:
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
niv-mizzet wrote: -Can the asm "RG pack ability" make the charge rerollable?
Per the Character and Moving rules and the Draft FAQ, Dante and the asm each use their respective rules for charging, which allows any Jump model in the unit to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 00:43:52
I see the Ignored One has posted after me, Niv-mizzet. I refuse to view his posts any more as he tends to misrepresent what I have stated and has a very peculiar understanding of English grammar. Both of us have gone over this subject many times before, and it just devolves in to toxicity.
If you wish me to answer any questions he brings up, I will answer them as you wish.
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.
2016/10/20 19:21:17
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
There is only one answer to each question when you apply the BRB and the Draft FAQ for clarification. What Charistoph provides as 'Standard 1' is actually his personal house rule. Feel free to adopt Charistoph's house rule but do know that it is just a house rule and by no means standard.
Actually it's not a personal house rule at all. It's RAW if you are not applying the Draft FAQ, which really isn't official until it is published as an official FAQ. Technically method 2 would be people playing by house rules, going with the hypothesis that nothing changes between the Draft FAQ and the Official FAQ. There may be changes between the draft and the final FAQ, however. It's perfectly fine for people to play by method 2 in anticipation of the Draft FAQs coming through unchanged; I would expect a lot of people would because even if they're not official it's an indication of current RAI from GW, but that does not mean that everybody has to accept it until it's official, and until then Charistoph's method one is what is official until an official final FAQ is released. Please to not try to confuse people by claiming that the rules officially published for 7th edition and in any FAQs put out before the draft FAQ are merely "house rules"; you do a tremendous disservice to people by dismissing it so. Having Charistoph present the rules both ways, pre-draft FAQ and post-draft FAQ, was the best way possible to present the conflicting cases here, presenting the full argument so that people can make an informed judgment on what they do.
2016/10/20 20:16:00
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Actually it's not a personal house rule at all. It's RAW if you are not applying the Draft FAQ, which really isn't official until it is published as an official FAQ.
Actually, it is Charistoph's personal house rule and he has presented it as such in the past.
In his personal house rule, he ignores the Independent Character Special Rules rule which requires that there be something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" that confers the ability of the Special Rule to the Independent Character.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Since there is nothing in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force detachment rules that is "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" then the detachment rule abilities do not confer to any attached Independent Character.
Spoiler:
First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn.
So it's always been the case that ICs attached to Devastator Squads in a Skyhammmer Annihilation Force did not receive ability of the First the Fire, then the Blade special rule. The Draft FAQ did not change that. The Draft FAQ just proved once and for all that Charistoph's rogue interpretation of the rules was wrong.
I will go ahead and expose what I put in a spoiler above in case you missed it.
Let's dig in and fully explicate why an Independent Character attached to a unit in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force does not get the Skyhammer Annihilation Force unit's special rules.
Consider the case of a 3 man unit of Crisis Suits which I think sheds light on the issues involved. You purchase Vectored Retro-thrusters for one of the models giving that model Hit & Run and Fleet. So basically you have a model that has Hit & Run and Fleet, but you don't have a unit that has Hit & Run and Fleet.
The thing to determine is if the ability of the special rule on that model confers to the unit or not.
Hit & Run reads "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ." meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will confer to the unit and the unit will have the Hit & Run ability.
Fleet reads "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will not confer to the unit and the unit will not have the Fleet ability.
The use of the indefinite article in "a unit" means that "a unit" itself is being used in a non-specific, general way. If all one says is "a unit" then nothing is being specified at all about "a unit". "A unit" can refer to a unit as described on an Army List Entry or it can refer to a unit with an Independent Character attached to it or it can refer to a unit that is shooting, or a Deathmark unit, etc.
But, we aren't just dealing with "a unit". We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
#############################
So now let's consider the case of an Independent Character attached to 3 man unit of Crisis Suits where one model has Hit & Run and Fleet.
Essentially it works out the same way as when only one model in a unit has a special rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule simply reinforces the way the ability of a special rule propagates through a unit that is heterogeneous with respect to a special rule.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The Special Rules rule requires that a special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Hit & Run, we have already identified that something to be the dependent adjectival clause ("that contains at least one model with this special rule"). Not only is the clause worded the same as Stubborn but it also works to the same effect (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to). We are simply dealing with the same specified kind of unit that we are dealing with in the case of Stubborn while we are determining what kind of unit will get the ability of the special rule.
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies the rule entirely.
#############################
Okay. So far so good. These are the results one would expect based on our discussion of the 3 man unit of Crisis Suits.
But what happens in the case of a rule like Objective Secured?
Spoiler:
Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.
In the case of Objective Secured, the troop unit has the special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the Objective Secured ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the troop unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the Objective Secured ability since the Special Rules rule was not satisfied. So if only the Independent Character is in range of an objective then it cannot take control of the objective away from non Objective Secured units.
The Skyhammer Annihilation Force detachment Special Rules work out in essentially the same way as the the Objective Secured detachment rule which confers its ability to "troop units". Attached ICs from other detachments do not have the ability of the detachment rule conferred to them.
The Draft FAQ merely validates what I and several others have been arguing for quite some time now.
Spoiler:
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 20:20:16
2016/10/20 20:29:44
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Actually it's not a personal house rule at all. It's RAW if you are not applying the Draft FAQ, which really isn't official until it is published as an official FAQ.
Actually, it is Charistoph's personal house rule and he has presented it as such in the past.
You will have to document where he has labelled it as such in the past. I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post because, quite frankly, you're not worth debating based on your behavior in other threads so I stopped reading your post after this statement, just as I gave up on your earlier post after maligning Charistoph's reasoned arguments as House Rules. You might not think he's correct, but that doesn't make them House Rules.
niv-mizzet, if you see anything in col_impact's response to me worth posting a question on, in relatino to conflicting with what Charistoph says, he'll respond to it if you post it (I know he has the colonel on ignore whereas I haven't..yet). I know col_impact has had...."interesting" readings of rules before which you might have questions about. You can go here as an example of the quality of his arguments and his reactions to counterarguments. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/705101.page. Just a friendly warning if you wish to engage in an argument with him.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 20:33:03
2016/10/20 21:04:36
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Actually it's not a personal house rule at all. It's RAW if you are not applying the Draft FAQ, which really isn't official until it is published as an official FAQ.
Actually, it is Charistoph's personal house rule and he has presented it as such in the past.
You will have to document where he has labelled it as such in the past. I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post because, quite frankly, you're not worth debating based on your behavior in other threads so I stopped reading your post after this statement, just as I gave up on your earlier post after maligning Charistoph's reasoned arguments as House Rules. You might not think he's correct, but that doesn't make them House Rules.
niv-mizzet, if you see anything in col_impact's response to me worth posting a question on, in relatino to conflicting with what Charistoph says, he'll respond to it if you post it (I know he has the colonel on ignore whereas I haven't..yet). I know col_impact has had...."interesting" readings of rules before which you might have questions about. You can go here as an example of the quality of his arguments and his reactions to counterarguments. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/705101.page. Just a friendly warning if you wish to engage in an argument with him.
I proved in my post that you refused to read that Charistoph ignores the Independent Character Special Rules rule. Flat-out ignoring rules is house ruling.
I then went on to show that the BRB has always disallowed rules phrased simply as "the unit . . ." from conferring to attached ICs. The Draft FAQ merely reinforces what I and others have been saying for quite a long time.
If you or Charistoph feel otherwise then feel free to show how you satisfy the Independent Character Special Rules rule and allow the ability of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force detachment rules to confer to ICs that are not parf of the detachment.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Please post where in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule.
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
Happyjew wrote: Please post where in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule.
The problem is that the only thing that comes close to an explicit mention in the Stubborn rule is "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." combined with the Special Rules section of the IC rules giving Stubborn as an example as a rule that explicitly states this. It relies on the other statement in the IC rules of treating the IC as part of the unit for this to work, which GW appears to have undone with their Draft FAQ. This is where the problem creeps in. I've had this argument with Charistoph before on this topic; it's generally agreed though that it became a big mess with the Draft FAQ changing the rules here so what used to be taken as explicit can't necessarily be taken as explicit now.
Happyjew wrote: Please post where in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule.
That is not a requirement for the ability of a Special Rule to confer to an Independent Character according to the Independent Character Special Rules rule.
The requirement is that there is something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
Now so far in this thread I have explicated TWICE thoroughly how that works out according to the BRB, which I will include a third time in a spoiler here.
In short, Stubborn is specifically phrased such that a unit that is heterogeneous with regards to a Special Rule will have the ability of the Special Rule homogeneously applied. Unless Special Rules are phrased along the similar lines as Stubborn, the ability of the Special Rules will remain heterogeneous and only be conferred to the models which actually have the Special Rule, which is the case for the Skyhammer detachment rules.
Feel free to address my argument.
Spoiler:
Let's dig in and fully explicate why an Independent Character attached to a unit in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force does not get the Skyhammer Annihilation Force unit's special rules.
Consider the case of a 3 man unit of Crisis Suits which I think sheds light on the issues involved. You purchase Vectored Retro-thrusters for one of the models giving that model Hit & Run and Fleet. So basically you have a model that has Hit & Run and Fleet, but you don't have a unit that has Hit & Run and Fleet.
The thing to determine is if the ability of the special rule on that model confers to the unit or not.
Hit & Run reads "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ." meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will confer to the unit and the unit will have the Hit & Run ability.
Fleet reads "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will not confer to the unit and the unit will not have the Fleet ability.
The use of the indefinite article in "a unit" means that "a unit" itself is being used in a non-specific, general way. If all one says is "a unit" then nothing is being specified at all about "a unit". "A unit" can refer to a unit as described on an Army List Entry or it can refer to a unit with an Independent Character attached to it or it can refer to a unit that is shooting, or a Deathmark unit, etc.
But, we aren't just dealing with "a unit". We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
#############################
So now let's consider the case of an Independent Character attached to 3 man unit of Crisis Suits where one model has Hit & Run and Fleet.
Essentially it works out the same way as when only one model in a unit has a special rule.
The Independent Character Special Rules rule simply reinforces the way the ability of a special rule propagates through a unit that is heterogeneous with respect to a special rule.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
The Special Rules rule requires that a special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Hit & Run, we have already identified that something to be the dependent adjectival clause ("that contains at least one model with this special rule"). Not only is the clause worded the same as Stubborn but it also works to the same effect (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to). We are simply dealing with the same specified kind of unit that we are dealing with in the case of Stubborn while we are determining what kind of unit will get the ability of the special rule.
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies the rule entirely.
#############################
Okay. So far so good. These are the results one would expect based on our discussion of the 3 man unit of Crisis Suits.
But what happens in the case of a rule like Objective Secured?
Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.
In the case of Objective Secured, the troop unit has the special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the Objective Secured ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the troop unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the Objective Secured ability since the Special Rules rule was not satisfied. So if only the Independent Character is in range of an objective then it cannot take control of the objective away from non Objective Secured units.
The Draft FAQ merely validates what I and several others have been arguing for quite some time now.
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:02:04
Happyjew wrote: Please post where in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule.
I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule. Your bringing it up seems to support col_impact, not refute him.
(1) The rules for ICs state that, "[w]hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..." Without any other rules, that would mean that all of a unit's rules would be conferred upon the IC.
(2) However, the rules for ICs further state that, "[u]nless 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 rules are not conferred upon the unit."
(3) Only one part of the Stubborn rule might be the referent of number (2): "...a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
(4) Therefore, if a special rule states that it applies to "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule," both unit and attached IC benefit from that special rule if either of them has it.
(5) Further, unless a rule contains similar language, it is not shared between units and attached ICs (by (2)).
This argument seems pretty airtight and is consistent with, but doesn't depend on, the draft FAQ.
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
Special rules are abilities. It's the ability of the Stubborn Special Rule that is conferred by the specific phrasing in the Stubborn rule as I have already pointed out. Without that specific phrasing, the ability of the Special Rule is not conferred.
Spoiler:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:22:28
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's rules are not conferred upon the unit.". If the rules are conferred upon the character, doesn't that mean he has the rule? It seems like you're trying to split hairs here where there isn't really a hair to split.
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's rules are not conferred upon the unit.". If the rules are conferred upon the character, doesn't that mean he has the rule? It seems like you're trying to split hairs here where there isn't really a hair to split.
The hair-splitting exercise has been resolved a long time ago. Special rules are abilities and the Independent Character Special Rules rule refers to the conferring of the ability of the special rule.
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.
Hesperus wrote: [I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Which is not what Happyjew asked. Just because the Independent Character benefits from the rule doesn't mean that he gets the rule.
"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's rules are not conferred upon the unit.". If the rules are conferred upon the character, doesn't that mean he has the rule? It seems like you're trying to split hairs here where there isn't really a hair to split.
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character?
The rule isn't given. Special rules are abilities. So the ability of the special rule is what is conferred.
A unit of 3 crisis suits. One of the crisis suits has vectored retro-thrusters (Hit & Run and Fleet).
The ability of Hit & Run on the one crisis suit model is conferred to the unit of crisis suits based on how Hit & Run is phrased ("A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .can . . .").
A short hand way of expressing the same thing is to say Hit & Run is conferred to the unit of crisis suits, since Special Rules are abilities.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 23:05:47
Happyjew wrote:Please post where in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule.
That's part of the problem. You must either recognize the Independent Character is explicitly part of the unit in order for it to do anything.
doctortom wrote:The problem is that the only thing that comes close to an explicit mention in the Stubborn rule is "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." combined with the Special Rules section of the IC rules giving Stubborn as an example as a rule that explicitly states this. It relies on the other statement in the IC rules of treating the IC as part of the unit for this to work, which GW appears to have undone with their Draft FAQ. This is where the problem creeps in. I've had this argument with Charistoph before on this topic; it's generally agreed though that it became a big mess with the Draft FAQ changing the rules here so what used to be taken as explicit can't necessarily be taken as explicit now.
And even that phrase does absolutely nothing to include an IC in this rule any more than does Fleet, Deep Strike, or Counterattack. It is just a minimum requirement of possession, nothing more. The place where anything is granted occurs later in the sentence after the conditions are listed.
Hesperus wrote:I hope I don't regret getting involved, but the Stubborn special rule explicitly applies to all models in a unit that contains at least one model with the special rule.
Actually, Stubborn applies nothing to the models. It checks the models for requirements and then applies its effect to the unit.
Hesperus wrote:(3) Only one part of the Stubborn rule might be the referent of number (2): "...a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
The problem being that this phrase is only a requirement of possession, and does absolutely nothing to include the Independent Character on its own. The part of the rule that includes the Independent Character is simply "a unit" or nowhere. The Independent Character is also included as "a unit" for Fleet and Deep Strike as well, which is why an IC without Fleet can stop a unit from using it. The difference between Fleet and Stubborn is that Fleet requires ALL models to have them, while Stubborn only requires one.
Detachment Special Rules do not state a requirement of the number of models to be possessing the rule, just simply the unit be from the Detachment (and thus have the Special Rule) to benefit from it. And that is where things get sticky.
There is no default rule that states "In order for a Special Rule to affect a unit, all models must have it, unless the rule states otherwise". Nor is there a default rule that states, "In order for a Special Rule to affect a unit, including the Independent Character, it must only require one model to have the Special Rule." If such was the default, then the language starting Deep Strike and Fleet would be superfluous.
I have been up and down both 6th and 7th Edition rulebooks in many discussions and none of them state this requirement as default.
USRs and Army Special Rules are listed as affecting the model with the Special Rule, affecting a unit with one model with the Special Rule, or affecting a unit with all models with the Special Rule. Detachment and Unique Special Rules, however only state that they affect the unit, giving no requirement of how many models to have them.
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.
Hesperus wrote:(3) Only one part of the Stubborn rule might be the referent of number (2): "...a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."
The problem being that this phrase is only a requirement of possession, and does absolutely nothing to include the Independent Character on its own. The part of the rule that includes the Independent Character is simply "a unit" or nowhere. The Independent Character is also included as "a unit" for Fleet and Deep Strike as well, which is why an IC without Fleet can stop a unit from using it. The difference between Fleet and Stubborn is that Fleet requires ALL models to have them, while Stubborn only requires one.
Detachment Special Rules do not state a requirement of the number of models to be possessing the rule, just simply the unit be from the Detachment (and thus have the Special Rule) to benefit from it. And that is where things get sticky.
There is no default rule that states "In order for a Special Rule to affect a unit, all models must have it, unless the rule states otherwise". Nor is there a default rule that states, "In order for a Special Rule to affect a unit, including the Independent Character, it must only require one model to have the Special Rule." If such was the default, then the language starting Deep Strike and Fleet would be superfluous.
I have been up and down both 6th and 7th Edition rulebooks in many discussions and none of them state this requirement as default.
USRs and Army Special Rules are listed as affecting the model with the Special Rule, affecting a unit with one model with the Special Rule, or affecting a unit with all models with the Special Rule. Detachment and Unique Special Rules, however only state that they affect the unit, giving no requirement of how many models to have them.
We aren't just dealing with "a unit" in the case of Special Rules like Hit & Run, Slow and Purposeful , etc. We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".
In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies any model in the unit having the ability of the special rule.
In the case of Detachment rules that are applied to "the unit" the unit has the detachment special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the unit ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the unit ability since the Independent Character Special Rules rule was not satisfied.
The default state is that a unit that is heterogeneous with regards to a special rule remains heterogeneous with regards to conferring the ability of the special rule (ie there remains a 1 to 1 assignment of the model with the special rule and the model with the ability of the special rule).
Consider a 3 model crisis suit unit. One crisis suit model has Advanced Targeting System (Precision Shots) and Vectored Retro-thrusters (Hit & Run and Fleet)
The Precision Shots ability is only conferred to the one Crisis Suit model that actually has the rule. This is the default.
The Hit & Run ability is conferred to the entire unit even though only the one crisis suit has it because of the way the unit has been specified in the Hit & Run special rule as "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". This matches how Stubborn does it.
The Fleet ability is not conferred to any model in the entire unit, effectively taking the ability away from the model who purchased it, because of the way the unit has been specified in the Fleet special rule as "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule".
Moreover, the Independent Character Special Rules rule reinforces that the default behavior is that abilitiies of the special rules of the unit do not confer to the IC unless something is "specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn)".
Special rules that are written along the lines of Stubborn allow the abilities of special rules to spread beyond the models that have the special rules on their datasheet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 02:36:29
There actually is a default that, in order for a Special Rule to affect a unit at the unit level, all models must have it. That's because using the special rule would otherwise break another rule (or necessarily confer the special rule to a model that didn't have it, thereby breaking the default that special rules are not conferred to ICs that join a unit). For instance, imagine a special rule allows a unit to charge on the turn it arrives from reserves, and the rule doesn't have the "a unit with at least one model..." language. That unit is then joined (in reserves) by an IC that doesn't have the rule. The unit arrives from reserves. Can it charge? No, because if it did, a model that is not allowed to charge (the IC without the special rule) would be charging, and thus performing an illegal action.
2016/10/21 03:48:20
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Many people ignore the above and stop reading the section on characters when it says "characters count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes when joined to them" we are then later told this is not the case for special rules in the above quote later in the IC section. It says characters do not gain the special rules of an unit it is joined to if it, unless the special rule specifies it is conferred (benefited) to the character.
It also gives as an example stubborn.
It then tells us that stubborn special rule has wording in it that states it confers to the IC.
Obviously many people here have read stubborn and see it does not contain the exact word specify, however the BRB tells the reader that it contains wording that specifies it confers to the IC.
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.
Obviously the above does not use the exact word confer, but the reader is told that the rule stubborn specifies it confers(another word for benefit...) the IC if IC is attached. looking at the special rule anyone that is able to read english will notice the only section that deals with units/models is:
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule
Which is used for a number of special rules in the game.
Further arguing that stubborn does not specify it confers (the logic being it does not use the word confer) is both ignoring the RAW that tells you it does, is used as an example for doing so, and is specified to contain language that it benefits the IC (the IC of course is a model in the unit and the special rule gives a benefit specifically to all of the unit if at least one model has it) - and using that as the basis for saying things like skyhammer rules (which do not even contain the word unit...) benefit an IC is a good example of a strawman arguement.
tldr- the faq is a clarification and not an errata some people just can't accept their ignorance of a large section of the IC rules was the basis for how the game should be played.
2016/10/21 04:10:05
Subject: Re:More idependent character formation fun
Yup. All the Draft FAQ does is say "Yo! Don't forget to apply the Independent Character Special Rules rule!" which some people were somehow forgetting to apply.
Hesperus wrote:There actually is a default that, in order for a Special Rule to affect a unit at the unit level, all models must have it.
Incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote of this statement. This would also make such conditions in Fleet and Deep Strike superfluous and redundant.
Hesperus wrote:That's because using the special rule would otherwise break another rule (or necessarily confer the special rule to a model that didn't have it, thereby breaking the default that special rules are not conferred to ICs that join a unit). For instance, imagine a special rule allows a unit to charge on the turn it arrives from reserves, and the rule doesn't have the "a unit with at least one model..." language. That unit is then joined (in reserves) by an IC that doesn't have the rule. The unit arrives from reserves. Can it charge? No, because if it did, a model that is not allowed to charge (the IC without the special rule) would be charging, and thus performing an illegal action.
What does "confer" mean in the 40K rulebook? Oxford English states this as "grant (a noun)" (the other is to discuss, which is not appropriate to the context) and synonymous with "bestow on, present with, award to, gift with, endow with", etc. So the unit does not grant its Special Rules to the IC, and the IC does not grant its Special Rules to the unit he joins.
The condition of possession is never stated as the reason why Stubborn works. This is an assumption that people latch on to because the alternative is too scary to deal with. There is nothing that states that a rule that affects a unit requires all models to have it by default. The standard is that a Special Rule can only be used by the model which has it, but these rules do not affect models directly at all.
Stubborn gives its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements. Fleet gives its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements. Counterattack does not give its effect to the unit which satisfies its requirements, but only the model.
I will go in to the next part farther down because Blacktoof needs a reminder of something.
blaktoof wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Many people ignore the above and stop reading the section on characters when it says "characters count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes when joined to them" we are then later told this is not the case for special rules in the above quote later in the IC section. It says characters do not gain the special rules of an unit it is joined to if it, unless the special rule specifies it is conferred (benefited) to the character.
No, we do not stop there, we continue reading. You are the one who stops.
From 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.
In order for an IC to still have a Special Rule's effect after it leaves the unit, he would have to be affected by it in the first place.
Leave out the conditions and who does Stubborn affect? Who do Detachment rules affect?
blaktoof wrote:It also gives as an example stubborn.
It then tells us that stubborn special rule has wording in it that states it confers to the IC.
Obviously many people here have read stubborn and see it does not contain the exact word specify, however the BRB tells the reader that it contains wording that specifies it confers to the IC.
That's because it doesn't. The verb isn't really the problem here, it is the lack of a noun that is the problem, as demonstrated by HappyJew's question of "(W)here in the Stubborn special rule it explicitly mentions Independent Characters getting the rule(?)"
The only place an "Independent Character" can be found in the Stubborn rule is if we count it as part of "a unit".
This same location of recognition is the same in Fleet, Deep Strike, the Golden Host "relevant special rule", and (by virtue of using a Unit Name) First the Fire, Then the Blade.
Stubborn then affects that same level of organization as all of those. Why are these units any different?
blaktoof wrote:
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.
Obviously the above does not use the exact word confer, but the reader is told that the rule stubborn specifies it confers(another word for benefit...) the IC if IC is attached. looking at the special rule anyone that is able to read english will notice the only section that deals with units/models is:
Do not misread your dictionary. "Confer" means to "grant (a noun)". What are we told are not "granted"? The Special Rules themselves, not the benefits or effects of the Special Rule.
If you cannot demonstrate the rulebook's use of "confer" as "benefit" without using this same group of sentences, then your logic is seriously flawed as you are using your desired end to redefine the word. If you can demonstrate such, please do so.
blaktoof wrote:Further arguing that stubborn does not specify it confers (the logic being it does not use the word confer) is both ignoring the RAW that tells you it does, is used as an example for doing so, and is specified to contain language that it benefits the IC (the IC of course is a model in the unit and the special rule gives a benefit specifically to all of the unit if at least one model has it) - and using that as the basis for saying things like skyhammer rules (which do not even contain the word unit...) benefit an IC is a good example of a strawman arguement.
Well you brought a good strawman argument since no one here brought up that Stubborn doesn't "confer" because it doesn't use the word "confer", and then you don't even properly use the word or support your definition of it. What has been asked is how it confers when Stubborn doesn't explicitly state "Independent Character".
blaktoof wrote:tldr- the faq is a clarification and not an errata some people just can't accept their ignorance of a large section of the IC rules was the basis for how the game should be played.
Considering some of these "clarifications" are in direct odds with written words (see Battle Brothers and deployment in Transports for one example), they are improperly being used as errata.
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.
Ongoing effects are not special rules. Special rules may cause ongoing effects. A blinded unit doesn't have the blind special rule, it has been effected by another unit with the blind special rule.
Stubborn is not an ongoing effect
Further your requirement that it says IC, is your personal requirement, the rules specifically use stubborn as a n example of containing language that specifies it effects the attached IC. The only such wording in stubborn is any unit with at least one model with this rule. Your ignorance of that is your choice to not follow the RAW that stubborn is a valid example of a rule that contains wording that specifies it effects the IC.
blaktoof wrote: Ongoing effects are not special rules. Special rules may cause ongoing effects. A blinded unit doesn't have the blind special rule, it has been effected by another unit with the blind special rule.
Stubborn is not an ongoing effect
And you completely missed the point of my referencing it, even after I explained it. Every Special Rule has an effect. The effect is what actually happens. A unit affected by Stubborn ignores negative modifiers to its Leadership value.
In order for an Ongoing Effect to have any weight, it must affect the entities in question in the first place. The effect can come from a normal rule or a Special Rule, no distinction is made, but if the unit an Independent Character is in comes under an effect (harmful or beneficial), the Independent Character is affected as well.
What entity does Stubborn affect? What entity does Fleet affect? What entity does Counterattack affect? What entity does First the Fire, Then the Blade affect?
blaktoof wrote: Further your requirement that it says IC, is your personal requirement, the rules specifically use stubborn as a n example of containing language that specifies it effects the attached IC. The only such wording in stubborn is any unit with at least one model with this rule. Your ignorance of that is your choice to not follow the RAW that stubborn is a valid example of a rule that contains wording that specifies it effects the IC.
It is not my personal requirement, it is the requirement stated by the IC and Special Rules section of the Independent Character Special Rule you quoted.
The phrase "with at least one model with this special rule" does absolutely nothing on its own to grant or include anything. It does nothing to nothing. It is a condition of possession, nothing more. It is checking an entity to see what is had and placing a requirement on that degree of possession for the rule to work. In addition, this is only one of two of the conditions and requirements that Stubborn has for the entity it affects. Why is this condition of possession any more the key than "takes Morale checks or Pinning tests"?
If the phrase "with at least one model with this special rule" were, in fact, to do as you assert, then Counterattack would benefit any joined IC as much as Stubborn, Fearless, or Slow and Purposeful. This would be incorrect since that is not the phrase that gives anything. The phrase that gives Stubborn's effect to anything happens after the conditions and starts with "they ignore". The "they" being "a unit" which has fulfilled all of its requirements. The phrase that cuts off Counterattack from affecting the entire unit is when it states "every model with the special rule" getting the effect.
Your condescending ignorance of these facts is your choice not to follow the RAW of what Stubborn actually states.
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.
20000+ points
Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred (i.e., the rule is given) to the Independent Character? Bad example is a bad example since Stubborn never says that the Independent Character gains Stubborn just because he's in a unit with a model with that special rule.
