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.

Yay! Keyboards sacrificed over moar GW bad written rules. Just as planned...

More funny question: What is a unit? Is Magnus a unit? Do you need 1+ models to have a unit? Is Magnus or a DP forever unable to benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch? If I have a unit of 2 obliterators I can give them Blessing of Tzeentch. What happens if one of them dies? Does the unit stop being a unit any more?

Jesus GW, you make it so stupidly difficult to even make sense of the rules. Messing us up on what is RAI-wise the most straightforward rule to understand: Buff your dudes and they get an extra candy on top of that.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Yay! Keyboards sacrificed over moar GW bad written rules. Just as planned...

More funny question: What is a unit? Is Magnus a unit? Do you need 1+ models to have a unit? Is Magnus or a DP forever unable to benefit from Blessing of Tzeentch? If I have a unit of 2 obliterators I can give them Blessing of Tzeentch. What happens if one of them dies? Does the unit stop being a unit any more?

Jesus GW, you make it so stupidly difficult to even make sense of the rules. Messing us up on what is RAI-wise the most straightforward rule to understand: Buff your dudes and they get an extra candy on top of that.

BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

Fhionnuisce wrote: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?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

If you are told to affect one thing, are you told to affect a multitude at the same time?

Fhionnuisce wrote:BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

I can point out several ICs which are not single model units, but that's getting nit picky.

And what about my 2 man obliterator unit suffering a casualty? Does it cease being a unit if 1 guy dies?

From Dictionary.com :

unit
[yoo-nit]

noun
1.
a single thing or person.
2.
any group of things or persons regarded as an entity:
They formed a cohesive unit.
3.
one of the individuals or groups that together constitute a whole; one of the parts or elements into which a whole may be divided or analyzed.
4.
one of a number of things, organizations, etc., identical or equivalent in function or form:
a rental unit; a unit of rolling stock.
5.
any magnitude regarded as an independent whole; a single, indivisible entity.
6.
Also called dimension. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, or time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated.
7.
the least positive integer; one.

Well, that's not helping.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote: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?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

You are the one who brought up the directly and indirectly affected idea. My point is that doesn't matter. Whether it affects directly or indirectly it is still affected and Blessing of Tzeentch only cares that the unit be affected by a blessing. Your extra qualified are irrelevant.

I can't help noticing in your efforts to attack me for using the terminology you introduced you still have not provided any rules support. Since it is becoming abundantly clear you have no intention of doing so I am done with this until there are actual rules brought up for discussion.

topaxygouroun i wrote:And what about my 2 man obliterator unit suffering a casualty? Does it cease being a unit if 1 guy dies?

From Dictionary.com :

The rulebook provides the definition of unit, so we can dispense with the dictionary version. YMDC Tenet #6.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You are the one who brought up the directly and indirectly affected idea. My point is that doesn't matter. Whether it affects directly or indirectly it is still affected and Blessing of Tzeentch only cares that the unit be affected by a blessing. Your extra qualified are irrelevant.

I can't help noticing in your efforts to attack me for using the terminology you introduced you still have not provided any rules support. Since it is becoming abundantly clear you have no intention of doing so I am done with this until there are actual rules brought up for discussion.

Actually, no, I am not the one who brought up the idea. I identified it for what it was and provided the label, that's not the same thing. The concept that if you affect the model, you affect the unit, is presenting the concept of the indirect effect.

Relentless, which states it only applies to a model, indirectly affects the unit because it allows certain actions by that model that would otherwise affect the unit, to be ignored.

Conversely, Stubborn states it affects a unit, so it affects the whole group, without any need of adding "indirectly" to the statement.

You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

You have not provided any rules that indirectly affected matters, so should we ignore what you state? The rules simply state "affect", correct? In common usage, that often does not always include the indirect, and only does for the most picky.

Admittedly, it is dependent on the system and one's interpretations of how far the simple term "affect" goes. It is only when we are told to think so critically that we bring the concept of indirectly affect in to play.

But we must also recognize as to whom we are told to affect with the rules, either model or unit. Do not conflate the terms to being one and the same, for the game does not recognize them as such. When we are told we are to affect one model with a group, we are not being told that all in the group are being affected. It is to this I keep asking you to reference to support your assertion.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You have acknowledged that an effect on a model indirectly (your term) affects the unit. You have provided examples of what would be directly affecting vs indirectly affecting, but no rules that indicate that distinction matters, therefore we can ignore we can ignore that element. We are left with an effect on a model affects the unit.

Your own argument supports the claim I have been making unless you can show something in the rules that gives significance to your direct/indirect qualifier.

You have not provided any rules that indirectly affected matters, so should we ignore what you state? The rules simply state "affect", correct? In common usage, that often does not always include the indirect, and only does for the most picky.

Admittedly, it is dependent on the system and one's interpretations of how far the simple term "affect" goes. It is only when we are told to think so critically that we bring the concept of indirectly affect in to play.

But we must also recognize as to whom we are told to affect with the rules, either model or unit. Do not conflate the terms to being one and the same, for the game does not recognize them as such. When we are told we are to affect one model with a group, we are not being told that all in the group are being affected. It is to this I keep asking you to reference to support your assertion.

Again, you were the one that brought in the indirect affect. I have been operating on the most basic definition of affect - to act on; produce an effect or change in. If an action resulted in a change in the unit then the unit was affected. I'm unclear on how you consider the most basic dictionary definition to be not common usage. Since you are convinced the dictionary definition of affect is not appropriate in the context of the game you need to show where the rules contradict or redefine the term. A rulebook definition would certainly override a dictionary definition within the framework of the game, but you haven't provided one. If the rules don't define it and we can't assume the standard English language meaning then we have no basis for even communication, much less agreeing on game rules.

The semantic distinction at issue here is not between 'indirect' and 'direct' uses of the term affect. Charistoph is making up those terms and forming a false dichotomy.

The actual semantic distinction at issue here is between 'wholly affect' and just 'affect'.

The BRB does not specify 'wholly affect' so it can only mean just 'affect'.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Again, you were the one that brought in the indirect affect. I have been operating on the most basic definition of affect - to act on; produce an effect or change in. If an action resulted in a change in the unit then the unit was affected. I'm unclear on how you consider the most basic dictionary definition to be not common usage. Since you are convinced the dictionary definition of affect is not appropriate in the context of the game you need to show where the rules contradict or redefine the term. A rulebook definition would certainly override a dictionary definition within the framework of the game, but you haven't provided one. If the rules don't define it and we can't assume the standard English language meaning then we have no basis for even communication, much less agreeing on game rules.

Do not misrepresent what I have said, for the second time, I did not bring it up. I merely pointed out that is what you and others are trying to include "indirectly affect" with "affect". Properly defining a situation is not bringing it up. The person who is making an assertion of something is the one who is bringing it up.

I do believe that I brought up the definition of "affect" earlier, so don't even think I am trying to ignore it. Keep in mind that the English language has many different permutations, largely because of the sources that it borrows from and the vernacular that grows from social modifications. The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage. We are not instructed to consider it in this game's context, as far as I know, nor have you presented anything which tells me to.

So, the question is, when something is said that it affects a model, is it stating it is affecting a unit? These are different levels of entities, and you need to demonstrate what is telling you to do so.

Can you demonstrate that the use of "affect" is to be used in an indirect as well as a manner via any precedent in the rulebook?

So far you have beaten around the bush and accused me of attacking you, while doing nothing else but saying the equivalent of "it doesn't say I can't do that".

Charistoph,

"direct" versus "indirect" is a false dichotomy that you have made up in order to strawman your opponent. The BRB makes no distinction between "direct" or "indirect" with regards to affect.


The actual semantic distinction at issue here is between "wholly affect" and just "affect".

The BRB does make a distinction between "wholly" with regards to "within" and movement.



This underscores what we already know. Unless the BRB specifically says "wholly affect" the BRB means just "affect".


Semantics and English usage are not on your side here. You need to support your argument with rules quotes or some other logical argumentation (e.g. reductio ad absurdum).

 Charistoph wrote:
So far you have beaten around the bush and accused me of attacking you, while doing nothing else but saying the equivalent of "it doesn't say I can't do that".

Let's consider this statement. I have made no statements anything like the rules don't say you can't. I have backed any claims with rules where I could find them and logic in the, admittedly many in this case, places the rules fell short. I've stated from the very beginning I don't think the rules have been sufficiently defined to reach a firm RAW decision on this particular rule.

You on the other hand have stated my evaluation is completely wrong on the basis of terms and levels of distinction that do not actually appear in the rules, but have failed to provide any rules support at all that shows why we can use your interpretation. As many on this board (yourself included I believe) are fond of saying, in a permissive rule set, if the rules do not give you explicit permission to do it then you can't do it.

Don't add irrelevant terms and qualifiers to show me why my interpretation is wrong, show me the rules that make your interpretation right.

 Charistoph wrote:
The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage.

If you can't communicate your point clearly, maybe it's because you're a little mixed up.

You don't need a critical thinking exercise, you just need a dictionary.

Wow stepped away from this after the first page, didn't think my question would start this size of a discussion haha.
The way I see it is that a unit consists of models that are grouped together, weather that's a single model acting on its own, a squad bought and upgraded together or a squad with an independent character attached. Force says it targets the entire unit and is a blessing, weather or not the models in question have a force weapon it doesn't matter where as something like fiery form is a blessing that targets the psycher in which case the unit has not been targeted, just the individual. This is how I interpret it and how I believe it was intended.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Let's consider this statement. I have made no statements anything like the rules don't say you can't. I have backed any claims with rules where I could find them and logic in the, admittedly many in this case, places the rules fell short. I've stated from the very beginning I don't think the rules have been sufficiently defined to reach a firm RAW decision on this particular rule.

You have not backed up your claims with any rule that states we are to consider "indirectly affected" to mean the common usage of "affected". You have not backed up your claims that we are permitted to consider a unit affected when a model is affected. This is what I mean by you saying that you can't apply this definition.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You on the other hand have stated my evaluation is completely wrong on the basis of terms and levels of distinction that do not actually appear in the rules, but have failed to provide any rules support at all that shows why we can use your interpretation. As many on this board (yourself included I believe) are fond of saying, in a permissive rule set, if the rules do not give you explicit permission to do it then you can't do it.

Not entirely. Units and models are separate levels of identification. You have done nothing to discount this. Because of this, what is stated as affecting one, does not necessarily state it affects another.

Part of the problem is that this concept that I am trying to help you see is that it is part of how the ruleset is presented, which means it is hard to put it down in one point that when a rule states it is affecting a model, it doesn't mean it is affecting a unit.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Don't add irrelevant terms and qualifiers to show me why my interpretation is wrong, show me the rules that make your interpretation right.

Why have you not shown your interpretation is right? Why have you not demonstrated from the rulebook that when a something is affecting a model, it is also affecting a unit?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The concept of conflating "indirectly affect" in to the term "affect" is a critical thinking exercise, and not common usage.

If you can't communicate your point clearly, maybe it's because you're a little mixed up.

You don't need a critical thinking exercise, you just need a dictionary.

And yet the dictionary doesn't consider the classification of the "indirect affect" as part of the base definition. The only places that it is considered is in critical thinking exercises or as directed in instructions. And one only usually finds that out after one has given an "incomplete" answer.

To act upon a model, doesn't necessarily mean you are acting upon a unit. The differences between rules like Relentless and Stubborn are quite clear on this. Move Through Cover has two different effects, one affects the unit, and one affects the model. Everything else beyond that, the game does not make note of as affecting.

So you are willing to tell me I am wrong without providing rules that show it, then when asked to provide rules to support your interpretation you just flat refuse to do it. This strongly indicates that either you view your position as indefensible or your goal in the discussion has nothing to do with reaching any understanding about how the rule works.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So you are willing to tell me I am wrong without providing rules that show it, then when asked to provide rules to support your interpretation you just flat refuse to do it. This strongly indicates that either you view your position as indefensible or your goal in the discussion has nothing to do with reaching any understanding about how the rule works.

In regards to the application of "affect", my position is just as tenuous as yours, so don't get so high and mighty or offended by it.

However, there is a clear definition of model and a clear definition of unit. While a unit may be made up of one model, that is more the exception than the rule. There are clear foundations as to when something is being acted upon and to which it is identified, and these are set in the front of the book under General Principles.

The clearest indication of this is the interactions between Independent Characters and units. There is more than enough posted on this forum about it, and there is enough in there to indicate the relationship between model and unit. Also read up on the introduction to Special Rules for some further insights.

To put it in short, by stating something that affects a model is affecting a unit, is extending the reach of an affect farther than it has permission to do. It has little to do with "affect" itself and more to do with the distinct delineations provided between model and unit in rule interaction. Which is why I kept restating that interaction. You focused too much one word to bother looking at this relationship.

See I can accept and respect that acknowledgement about the affect definition. You were presenting like it was a well established and accepted interaction but then not providing support.

As to the unit/model distinction, I have not missed or ignored that. I agree targeting a model is not the same as targeting a unit. I agree acting on a model is not the same as acting on a unit. Or vice versa in either case. Those are better established concepts in the rules. I have focused on affect precisely because it is the unknown element. And since affect is a more general concept than act on, I don't know that you can say something must be acted on to be affected. That's not how it works in general usage and I have not seen rules that say we should interpret it differently than the general usage.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
And since affect is a more general concept than act on, I don't know that you can say something must be acted on to be affected. That's not how it works in general usage and I have not seen rules that say we should interpret it differently than the general usage.

And this is where YMDC Tenet #6 comes in to play.

Affect's definition can be a little different, depending on who you ask. Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, and Merriam Webster all have different definitions to it.

So, since we are dealing with many different concepts, can we say that something is affecting a whole group of models when it only states it is affecting one model?

We fundamentally disagree on what it means to be affected. You require it be specifically designated as being agreed upon while I am willing to consider the more general definition that it have been in some way changed. The rules don't seem to address it so barring rules text that hasn't come up in the discussion so far or an FAQ release we will not reach a consensus and even if we did agree we still couldn't definitively say it is RAW.

Out of curiosity, do those of you who say the entire unit has to be affected by the blessing to get the +1 invul also not reveal mysterious objectives unless your entire unit gets within 3 inches? (page 135, "any unit that moves within 3" of an objective, or is within 3" of an objective at the start of the first turn, must identify the nature of it")

or for some of the many tactical objectives like hold the line (page 139 "score 1 victory point if at least 3 of your scoring units and none of your opponent's scoring units are within 12" of your own table edge at the end of your turn")

Even rules like Blind (page 159) say "any unit hit by one or models with this special rule must take an initiative test" but I've never avoided taking the test because every model in the unit wasn't hit by the blinding weapon.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote: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?

Where does it make the distinction to treat affected and indirectly affected as the same?

If you need to make a caveat of "indirectly", are you really using the basic use of the term?

If you are told to affect one thing, are you told to affect a multitude at the same time?

Fhionnuisce wrote:BRB page 9 again. Powerful single models are also considered units. Magnus, DPs, any IC, and a plethora of other models would fall into that grouping.

I can point out several ICs which are not single model units, but that's getting nit picky.

That's the whole point, no distinction is made. It says "affected", "inderectly affected" and "directly affected" (if such a thing even existd) both fall under "affected". As a result the unit as a whole is affected and receives the blessing.

Blessing of tzeentch sets the parameter "IF unit is affected by blessing THEN +1 to invul saves".
Force is a blessing that sets the parameter "IF cast is succesful THEN entire unit is affected as per power description" because the entry says it is a blessing that targets the entire unit. The effect of force sets the parameter "IF number of force weapons >0 THEN weapon gains instant death ELSE no instant death i gained". The power still runs, whether it does something or not.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
We fundamentally disagree on what it means to be affected. You require it be specifically designated as being agreed upon while I am willing to consider the more general definition that it have been in some way changed. The rules don't seem to address it so barring rules text that hasn't come up in the discussion so far or an FAQ release we will not reach a consensus and even if we did agree we still couldn't definitively say it is RAW.

Simple question. If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

lessthanjeff wrote:Out of curiosity, do those of you who say the entire unit has to be affected by the blessing to get the +1 invul also not reveal mysterious objectives unless your entire unit gets within 3 inches? (page 135, "any unit that moves within 3" of an objective, or is within 3" of an objective at the start of the first turn, must identify the nature of it")

or for some of the many tactical objectives like hold the line (page 139 "score 1 victory point if at least 3 of your scoring units and none of your opponent's scoring units are within 12" of your own table edge at the end of your turn")

Even rules like Blind (page 159) say "any unit hit by one or models with this special rule must take an initiative test" but I've never avoided taking the test because every model in the unit wasn't hit by the blinding weapon.

Because the game interacts with models and units differently. When a rule states "a model does X" or "When a model is hit, X happens", it is only working upon that model and not the whole group. When a rule states "a unit does X" or "When a unit is hit, X happens" it is talking about the whole group.

To consider it another way, let's look at Concussive. Does the whole group of models get affected when a unit is hit by it?

Blind is rather a poor example since Units are Hit, not models. Models get Wounds Allocated to them depending on the success against the Unit.

Objective Control specifically mentions "at least one model from one of your scoring units", so a less effective example.

DaPino wrote:That's the whole point, no distinction is made. It says "affected", "inderectly affected" and "directly affected" (if such a thing even existd) both fall under "affected". As a result the unit as a whole is affected and receives the blessing.

Blessing of tzeentch sets the parameter "IF unit is affected by blessing THEN +1 to invul saves".
Force is a blessing that sets the parameter "IF cast is succesful THEN entire unit is affected as per power description" because the entry says it is a blessing that targets the entire unit. The effect of force sets the parameter "IF number of force weapons >0 THEN weapon gains instant death ELSE no instant death i gained". The power still runs, whether it does something or not.

That is why I keep referencing back to Relentless. Relentless only affects a model. But by this consideration, it is "affecting" the unit, so all of the models are affected?

Maybe I should be referring to Concussive? If one model is affected by it, is the whole group of models it is with reduced to Initiative 1 or just the model?

 Charistoph wrote:
If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

Charistoph, you have a major flaw in your argument in that you are deliberately ignoring the nature of that "something". And have been for some time. Your Relentless example is one example which you've cherry-picked, and doesn't even pass the test when you reverse the IC + attached unit.

If you want to prove a global rule, you cannot simply ignore any scenario which doesn't suit your interpretation. Here's another VERY simple example. Forget Concussive, Blind, and the rest. If you remove a model, does a group get smaller? Most people don't need this explicitly stated to them.

If that "something" is what determines the affect, you need to consider every example on a case-by-case basis. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If something states it affects a model, is it stating it affects a whole group of models?

Charistoph, you have a major flaw in your argument in that you are deliberately ignoring the nature of that "something". And have been for some time. Your Relentless example is one example which you've cherry-picked, and doesn't even pass the test when you reverse the IC + attached unit.

If you want to prove a global rule, you cannot simply ignore any scenario which doesn't suit your interpretation. Here's another VERY simple example. Forget Concussive, Blind, and the rest. If you remove a model, does a group get smaller? Most people don't need this explicitly stated to them.

If that "something" is what determines the affect, you need to consider every example on a case-by-case basis. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

It is not a flaw in my argument, it is how I understand the processes involved and demonstrates the flaws in your argument.

We are looking at a special rule that is looking for another rule to do something to a certain type of entity, correct?

What is a unit, in your consideration?

Is a model a unit as far as the game is concerned?

Does Concussive affect a model or a unit?

Would a rule that states it changes a model also be changing the whole group of models, or just that one?

Why then would some thing looking for a change to the whole group be concerned about a change to just a portion and not the whole?

The rules don't require the "whole group" be changed. That is your stipulation that you have not been able to support. The rules only look to see that the unit has been affected. Barring a game rule definition, what affects a part can be considered to affect the whole.

You are equating affect with act on and they are not the same. Nothing states that because only a model is acted upon the unit is not affected. Nothing states every model must be acted on for the unit to be affected.

Unless you can define what affected means in a game sense you cannot support these claims. You can argue HIWPI, you can argue your interpretation of RAI, but there simply is not enough to make a case for RAW.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
The rules don't require the "whole group" be changed. That is your stipulation that you have not been able to support. The rules only look to see that the unit has been affected. Barring a game rule definition, what affects a part can be considered to affect the whole.

What is a unit? Is it not a whole group of models?

What informs you to consider something acting on a part of the unit to be acting on a whole?

Fhionnuisce wrote:
You are equating affect with act on and they are not the same. Nothing states that because only a model is acted upon the unit is not affected. Nothing states every model must be acted on for the unit to be affected.

This has already demonstrated that this definition is dependent upon which dictionary you use. Regardless of that, in order for something to be changed or made different, something has to act upon it.

Now, reverse your statement, nothing states that only one model needs to be acted on for the whole unit to be affected.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Unless you can define what affected means in a game sense you cannot support these claims. You can argue HIWPI, you can argue your interpretation of RAI, but there simply is not enough to make a case for RAW.

I have provided several definitions, but also demonstrated that it is pointless to the discussion because those definitions are rather mutable. More importantly, I recognize the definition of the entities involved which you seem to be ignoring. It is that which needs to be recognized in order to be properly addressed by you. These entities and their level of interactions are defined and demonstrated throughout the rulebook.

There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join. While "affect" may not be properly defined, this is. If you ignore these interaction definitions, you are extending concepts beyond that which they have been explicitly written.

Consider:
Does a unit Run or a model? Why? What tells you this?

Does a unit fire Weapons or does a model? Why? What tells you this?

Is a model affected by Concussive or is a unit? Why? What tells you this?

 Charistoph wrote:
There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join.

Then cite it.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is a RAW consideration of difference as to when a rules affect a model or they affect a unit. This is supported throughout the entire rulebook and made poignant in the interaction between Independent Characters and units they join.

Then cite it.

I have, you ignored it.