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:
But you are stating that if something affects the model, it affects the unit.

Maybe "affects" is what needs to be considered in context. Which will feed into this next section.

naturalwaytrainer wrote:
what about a model that already has the stealth and shrouded who is then blessed by a psychic power that gives stealth? was that model affected even though it could gain no further effects from the blessing? would they get the BoT? I think so

Wow. Good question. Really good. Looking at Blessing of Tzeentch:

"If any unit with the VotLW SR is affected by a blessing..."

I mean, I'd like to say yes. The unit has *recieved* a blessing. But a unit needs to be *affected* by a blessing. Multiple instances of Stealth do not stack. I don't know of any other coincidental effects from stacking USRs. The unit is unaffected. And if the unit is not affected, it cannot gain Blessing of Tzeentch.

Anyone else want to take a stab at this one?

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

What is a unit? A group of models. If you are saying a model is affected that the group of models are affected, then...

What's the actual rulebook definition of a unit?

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
This is the standard to consider when you are stating if something affects the model it affects the unit. When something is said to affect the unit, it is affecting all the models in a unit.

Why is this the standard? Where in the rules did it say something must affect all models to affect the unit?

What is a unit? A group of models. If you are saying a model is affected that the group of models are affected, then...

Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

I don't think we can have an answer to this unless we figure out what "affected by" actually means. There is no rule defining what it means therefore we cannot really speak on the RAW aspect of it. Here's some examples why:

1. Prescience blessing. This is the easiest example. Obviously the whole unit gets targeted and a change in its status occurs. The unit should get the Blessing.

2. Force. The whole unit is targeted. The whole unit gets a change in status on their weapons with the Force special rule. Not all the models in the unit have force weapons. So the first question arises. Does "affected by" requires a change in active status? Does the unit get the Blessing because they are targeted? Do they get it because they are bestowed the blessing? Do they not because even though they get the blessing, their active status does not change? Is the unit champion the only one to gain the blessing because he has a force weapon? Or is it that even he doesn't get it because the unit champion is not a unit, so a "unit" is not affected by casting Force?

3. Boon of Tzeentch. Does a lone character (ie a Daemon Prince) casting Boon get the Blessing? Simply put, is a solo Daemon Prince a unit? Is a solo DP ever able to gain the Blessing if he is not a unit? Is Magnus ever able to get the Blessing or is Magnus not a unit and therefore he may never get the blessing? And moving forward, does a sorc inside a unit casting Boon get the Blessing on himself or the whole unit? Is he even getting blessed at all by the same virtue that he is not a unit?

4. Telekinetic Dome. Targets models, not units. So let's take an example. A lone Daemon Prince casts Telekinetic Dome. The radius covers himself, a full unit of rubric marines, half a unit of rubric marines and half a unit of havocs. Who gets the Blessing of Tzeentch? The full unit of rubrics gets the blessing, but it is not being targeted and there is no change in their status, since they already have a better invul. The second rubric unit is not even whole within the radius of the spell. Finally, the havocs do indeed see a change in their status but still, not the whole unit is within the range of the spell. Who gets the blessing? Is it no-one? Is it everyone? Is it some units and no others? Is it only some models from each unit?

5. Mental Fortitude. It is cast on a rubric unit, a unit of havocs and a fleeing unit of havocs. Who gets the blessing? Does the rubric get it despite of no change in status? Do the two units of havocs get it, even if one is not fleeing at the moment?

6. Hammerhand. The spell only targets the psyker, but he AND his unit get +2 str. Who gets the blessing of tzeentch in this situation?

Overall, unless we figure out exactly what "affects" means and what a unit is or is not, we cannot arrive at a verdict. Which should surprise no-one given that GW writes the rules.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

Because that is how the rules all operate. When something identifies a model being affected, only that model is noted as being affected. When something identifies a unit being affected, all the models in the unit are being affected. This is how Run, Charge, Fleet, Deep Strike, Stubborn, and a whole host of other rules operate. As opposed to how Counter-Attack, Relentless, Daemon, Eternal Warrior, and a whole host of other rules operate.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Yes I would say that the group taken as whole has been affected when a single model has. Not every model is affected but the group as a whole is.

Regardless of my interpretation on that though, you have not provide rules support. Your argument thus far is all models must be affected because that's the way it is. I am looking for rules text support.

Because that is how the rules all operate. When something identifies a model being affected, only that model is noted as being affected. When something identifies a unit being affected, all the models in the unit are being affected. This is how Run, Charge, Fleet, Deep Strike, Stubborn, and a whole host of other rules operate. As opposed to how Counter-Attack, Relentless, Daemon, Eternal Warrior, and a whole host of other rules operate.

Those rules also state in their rules text how they interact witn models vs entire units. As I've stated before, in the absence of that text you can't assume they work the same way.

Also as I stated before, FAQ has made it clear that a unit with one Eldar model is an Eldar unit. A unit with one psyker model is a psyker unit. Why is a unit with one model affected by a blessing not an affected by blessing unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Those rules also state in their rules text how they interact witn models vs entire units. As I've stated before, in the absence of that text you can't assume they work the same way.

Then why are you assuming something that states it affects a model is affecting a unit?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Also as I stated before, FAQ has made it clear that a unit with one Eldar model is an Eldar unit. A unit with one psyker model is a psyker unit. Why is a unit with one model affected by a blessing not an affected by blessing unit?

Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level. Psyker rules are so borked up it's ridiculous, and a bad example.

A blessing affecting a model no more affects a unit than Relentless affects the unit. The model's interactions may involve the unit, such as a Relentless model firing a Rapid Fire Weapon not preventing a unit from Charging, but the unit is not actively benefiting from Relentless. Relentless is only actually benefiting the model itself.

The criteria is not benefiting, targeting, or anything else. It's "affecting".

Does one model firing without Relentless affect the unit?

Also, nice sum up, topaxy. It's nice to have a comprehensive overview.

I have a unit with no blessing.

I cast a blessing that only affects a single model in that unit.

It's that unit, in its entirety, exactly the same as before the blessing was cast?

Since the answer is no the logical conclusion is the unit had been attracted by the blessing.

I'm not saying this is correct since it is also not supported by rules text, but it is the logical conclusion to make. I would welcome proof otherwise but so far all I have seen is that other rules which have additional clarifying text work your way.

Truthfully I don't think there are rules to answer one way or the other. But if that is the case it still leaves me inclined to go with logic as the determinant.

And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

It is not a bad example, because how Relentless affects the model has an indirect affect on the unit, and we have been talking about how a Blessing which specifically affects a model is supposed to affect a unit to activate the Blessing of Tzeentch.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And your Relentless example had already shown to be bad since Relentless clearly states model not unit. However, as had been pointed out, a non Relentless IC joining our for that matter a single model losing Relentless somehow would prevent the unit from rapid during and charging, so again the status of a single model has affected the unit.

It is not a bad example, because how Relentless affects the model has an indirect affect on the unit, and we have been talking about how a Blessing which specifically affects a model is supposed to affect a unit to activate the Blessing of Tzeentch.

But the question isn't whether all rules transfer to the unit. Everyone agrees they don't. I phrased that badly in my last comment. The question is whether a change in one model has affected the unit. And if you were to give one model Relentless I would argue the unit has been affected because the unit is not exactly the same as it was before that happened.

Technically, if all we have is logic and semantics as our guide then Charistoph and Fhionnuisce are both right (or equally wrong) and neither can disprove the other.

A change to a model does logically and semantically affect the unit that model is in.


Is there anything beyond logic and semantics that can weigh in here?

 Charistoph wrote:
Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level.

Incidentally, while this is a true statement about factions, it did nothing to explain why the same would not also be true of an affected by blessing status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


Technically, if all we have is logic and semantics as our guide then Charistoph and Fhionnuisce are both right (or equally wrong) and neither can disprove the other.

A change to a model does logically and semantically affect the unit that model is in.


Is there anything beyond logic and semantics that can weigh in here?

I really don't think so.

Ok and now for the complete mindfuck: My sorcerer casts a Telekinetic Dome. He and X amount of models within 12" get blessed/affected/whatever. Let's just say these models only get the Blessing of Tzeentch. Then in the shooting phase, a unit of bikers turbo boosts and moves within 12" of the Sorcerer. Suddenly, these bikers benefit from the Telekinetic dome, even though they were not within 12" when the spell was cast. Do these bikers instantly get the Blessing of Tzeentch, because they are now obviously affected by the blessing?

Jesus that's so hard. Until an official faq comes, I'm going to switch the word "unit" with the word "model" in the Blessing of Tzeentch rule. This would clarify most of the questions I set above.

Fhionnuisce wrote:But the question isn't whether all rules transfer to the unit. Everyone agrees they don't. I phrased that badly in my last comment. The question is whether a change in one model has affected the unit. And if you were to give one model Relentless I would argue the unit has been affected because the unit is not exactly the same as it was before that happened.

And I didn't state anything about the rules transferring, did I? All I am talking about is the affect.

When something states it affects a model, that's all it directly affects, not the unit, and there is nothing to indicate that indirect affects are taken in to consideration.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Faction considerations operate on both a model and unit level.

Incidentally, while this is a true statement about factions, it did nothing to explain why the same would not also be true of an affected by blessing status.

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

 Charistoph wrote:

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

"Indirectly affect" . . . "level of entity recognition"? page and paragraph, please.

Not that I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to argue, but I am curious, do you have any basis in the actual rules for what you are claiming?

Any model on the battlefield is part of a unit. And a unit is nothing more than a collective of models. Units have no physical reality on their own apart from the models that comprise them.

Something that affects part of A affects A. Is it possible to burn someone's face but not burn them? Does death affect a family only when all of the family perishes or any time a member of the family dies?


Just wondering if you have anything at all to back your argument up except logic and semantics (ie something in the actual rules). If you don't then it seems you are at an impasse, since logic and semantics is on the other side as well.

Maybe we could consider if one interpretation leads to absurd results.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Because what states it affects a model, affects a model not the unit. It doesn't affect the unit unless it actually states it affects the unit. This is just taking it as it literally states and not what it may indirectly affect beyond that.

This is a case of level of entity recognition. A model is not a unit, and a unit is a group of models. A unit may be made up of one model or many, but it is still a case of properly recognizing the entity the rules are addressing.

So, if a rule states it affects a model, it is not affecting a unit. If a rule states affects a unit, it is supposed to be affecting all the models under its umbrella.

"Indirectly affect" . . . "level of entity recognition"? page and paragraph, please.

Not that I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to argue, but I am curious, do you have any basis in the actual rules for what you are claiming?

Any model on the battlefield is part of a unit. And a unit is nothing more than a collective of models. Units have no physical reality on their own apart from the models that comprise them.

Something that affects part of A affects A. Is it possible to burn someone's face but not burn them? Does death affect a family only when all of the family perishes or any time a member of the family dies?


Just wondering if you have anything at all to back your argument up except logic and semantics (ie something in the actual rules). If you don't then it seems you are at an impasse, since logic and semantics is on the other side as well.

Maybe we could consider if one interpretation leads to absurd results.

It's a rather big leap to deduce that a whole unit gets a Blessing of Tzeentch on a Boon cast on the sorcerer though. Ruleswise the unit is not even targeted, much less affected or involved in any way, and lorewise a Boon is Tzeentch blessing his champion after submitting it to a trial of spirit (a str 4 hit). If I were a random chaos marine, I would not dare to delve into my sorcerer's domain lest my arrogance gets noted and I'm rewarded with that-which-must-not-be-named. On the other hand, a redundant blessing cast on a unit is still a blessing nonetheless, and powers like Force or Tlekinetic Dome should grant Blessing of Tzeentch to the whole unit regardless if the unit can make use of the effect of the power or not.

At any rate, you two are not reaching a verdict any time in this century. I suggest we use the rule of cool (agree with opponent beforehand) or use the most important rule if you don't seem to agree.

Hard to get an consensus when one is being ignored because of his previous attempts to deliberately misrepresent both what I have said and what the rulebook says.

Let's look at a slightly different angle. The only definition I have seen for unit comes from BRB pg 9, which says basically a unit is a group of models banded together. To the best of my knowledge that is the only place 40k attempts to define a unit, certainly thus far no one has referenced any other. If that is in fact the only definition, then the unit has no identity separate of the included models. That would mean the unit (though not necessarily all member models) would have any and all qualities of the inluded models. So one psyker modell makes it a psyker unit, one Eldar model makes it an Eldar unit, one daemon model makes it a daemon unit, and one affected by blessing model makes it an affected by blessing unit.

If you have rules text that defines a unit separate from its member models please provide it. If you have rules text that defines affected in a way that shows it must be the entire unit please provide that. If you can provide neither I don't see how you can claim a different interpretation to be RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:
Hard to get an consensus when one is being ignored because of his previous attempts to deliberately misrepresent both what I have said and what the rulebook says.

Correct me if I am wrong but as I recall you have me on ignore because you got suspended several times from DakkaDakka for making baseless personal attacks against me in this forum (calling me a liar, etc.) since you have trouble keeping the discourse polite when you are losing the argument. Again, if my recall is incorrect here, feel free to show how I am incorrect.

I don't mind you putting me on ignore but let's be clear about why you have me on ignore, shall we? Calling me "the ignored one" for baseless reasons is just another instance of impolite discourse on your part. I politely request that you change your ways.


With regards to the matter at hand, Charistph, you are trying to treat "affect" as "wholly affect" when the dictionary definition of "affect" would include both "wholly" and "partially" senses of the word. The BRB does not provide us with an alternative definition of affect so your argument is on very thin ice here.

I am not sure which side I am on in this particular argument. I am pointing out that neither side has yet to disprove the other. I think you should look for a particular instance where treating affect as partially affect causes serious problems in the rules which then means we can discard the other side by virtue of reductio ad absurdum.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Let's look at a slightly different angle. The only definition I have seen for unit comes from BRB pg 9, which says basically a unit is a group of models banded together. To the best of my knowledge that is the only place 40k attempts to define a unit, certainly thus far no one has referenced any other. If that is in fact the only definition, then the unit has no identity separate of the included models. That would mean the unit (though not necessarily all member models) would have any and all qualities of the inluded models. So one psyker modell makes it a psyker unit, one Eldar model makes it an Eldar unit, one daemon model makes it a daemon unit, and one affected by blessing model makes it an affected by blessing unit.

If you have rules text that defines a unit separate from its member models please provide it. If you have rules text that defines affected in a way that shows it must be the entire unit please provide that. If you can provide neither I don't see how you can claim a different interpretation to be RAW.

If you can identify the rules text that states that when one model is affected, the entire group of models is affected, please provide it.

It's a simple case of recognizing who it is addressing and not trying to make indirect or abstract connections which are not properly defined.

If it says it affects a model, it is not stating it affects a group of models, just the model identified (i.e. targeted, with the special rule, etc). If it states it affects a unit, it is affecting a group of models. It really is that simple, so there is no reason to try an extend its meaning beyond what it is needed.

What defunition of affected are you using that would enable 99% of the unit to be changed but you still consider the unit unaffected?

A model is affected, a unit is nothing more than a group of models, the unit must be affected. It has no rules defined identity separate from that. You keep trying to treat the unit as a completely separate entity from the models it includes but have provided absolutely no rules support that says you can.

 Charistoph wrote:

If you can identify the rules text that states that when one model is affected, the entire group of models is affected, please provide it.

It's a simple case of recognizing who it is addressing and not trying to make indirect or abstract connections which are not properly defined.

If it says it affects a model, it is not stating it affects a group of models, just the model identified (i.e. targeted, with the special rule, etc). If it states it affects a unit, it is affecting a group of models. It really is that simple, so there is no reason to try an extend its meaning beyond what it is needed.

Where are you finding in the rules that "affect" strictly means "wholly affect" as you would have it? If the rules intend "affect" to mean "wholly affect" they would have specified as such, since "wholly affect" is a specific use of "affect". If a unit is partially affected it is affected.

You can't win this argument by appealing only to semantics and logic. Semantics and logic are actually against you here.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
What defunition of affected are you using that would enable 99% of the unit to be changed but you still consider the unit unaffected?

A model is affected, a unit is nothing more than a group of models, the unit must be affected. It has no rules defined identity separate from that. You keep trying to treat the unit as a completely separate entity from the models it includes but have provided absolutely no rules support that says you can.

The definition of model versus the definition of unit.

I stated my case using the definitions provided by the game. A unit is a group of models. By then the association is that if something is affecting a unit, it is affecting a group of models. Is affecting one model affecting a group of models?

Recognize the entities as they are defined and don't attribute more than what it states. No reason to try and make it more abstract than what it actually states.

When you affect one model in a group you are partially affecting the group.

The BRB uses "affect" and does not restrict "affect" to "wholly affect".

As already stated English semantics is not on your side.

Have you found something in the BRB to support your argument?

Can you find an absurd result that requires players to interpret "affect" as "wholly affect"?

Neither you nor anyone else have provided game rules for what counts as affected. Nothing has been shared that shows any correlation between what is targeted (model or unit) and limiting the affected status to only that.

Barring a game definition you can look at the unit before and after. If it's not identical then it must have been affected. The fact that only a single model was targeted or in range doesn't change the fact that the unit has changed in some way. The group of models is not identical to the original group of models. To do otherwise applies an exceptionally strict and limiting definition. Strict interpretation is great, even encouraged if it comes from rules text but I'd much less defensible if you must go outside the rules for a definition.

If you can cite game rules that define affected then do so. If you can cite game rules that say the entire unit must be targeted or included to count as an affected unit then do so. Since you have done neither I must assume you have not been able to find said rules which means at best you can call this ambiguous.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Neither you nor anyone else have provided game rules for what counts as affected. Nothing has been shared that shows any correlation between what is targeted (model or unit) and limiting the affected status to only that.

Barring a game definition you can look at the unit before and after. If it's not identical then it must have been affected. The fact that only a single model was targeted or in range doesn't change the fact that the unit has changed in some way. The group of models is not identical to the original group of models. To do otherwise applies an exceptionally strict and limiting definition. Strict interpretation is great, even encouraged if it comes from rules text but I'd much less defensible if you must go outside the rules for a definition.

If you can cite game rules that define affected then do so. If you can cite game rules that say the entire unit must be targeted or included to count as an affected unit then do so. Since you have done neither I must assume you have not been able to find said rules which means at best you can call this ambiguous.

Affected versus indirectly affected, that is what you are trying to argue here that they are the same. There is also the distinction between model versus unit. Was the whole group of models actually affected? If yes, how do you know? If no, how do you know?

What do the rules address, model or unit? It really is that simple.

I'm this case they are functionally the same. Blessing of Tzeentch cares only that the unit was affected and directly affected or indirectly affected are both affected. Where did the game make a distinction?