Sanguinor's Aura of Fervor

[Defenestratus]

While using the Aura of Fervor rule, I had some questions.


Which model in the unit gets the +1A? Is that up to the controlling player? Does the same model in the unit that got +1A get the same +1A the next round or can that change from round to round?

Alternately, its been brought to my attention that the RAI is +1A per model. I disagree with this assessment since it says that the UNIT gets +1A and not each MODEL getting +1A.

Thanks

[Culven]

If it says that the unit gains +1 Attack, I would say that it applies to each model in the unit. It seems strange to interpret it to mean that one model in the unit gain +1 Attack.

[Defenestratus]

Well the rule specifically states that all friendly UNITS within 6" get +1A ... not all friendly models. Believe me I'd love for it to be all models but I don't want to get my sportsmanship score docked for trying to powergame.

[Culven]

Compare the rule to Stealth, which grants +1 to a Unit's Cover saves. How does one attempt a Cover Save for a Unit? It seems that this logic would also apply to the Attacks. A Unit doesn't make attacks, the models in it do.

[Fellend]

If the Doom of malantai targets everyone in the unit so does the Sanguinor

[Lerra]

I've only seen it played where every model in the unit gets +1 attack. I would be very surprised if anyone objected.

I play with Logan Grimnar in my army, and he has a similar rule. Every friendly unit within 18" gains an additional attack (once per game). I've always played that the whole squad gets the extra attack. In the 100+ games I've played across three states I've never had anyone take issue with it.

[Tynskel]

the unit, as described on page 3 is an entity made up of individual parts--sometimes singular, other times, many models.

I tried to argue this point with the Acid Blood. They are worded the same, and should be treated the same:

Acid Blood, p. 84 Tyranid Codex: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood suffers in close combat, the enemy UNIT that struck the blow must pass an Initiative test or suffer a wound. No armour saves or cover saves may be taken against these wounds and casualties count towards combat resolution. Walkers instead suffer a glancing hit on the D6 roll of a 4+."

Aura of Fervour, p. 51 Codex Blood Angels: "All friendly UNITS within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack."

Since Acid Blood effects the UNIT not a model, the entire unit must make an Initiative test-- this would mean testing each individual model in a unit.

Since Aura of Fervour effects the UNIT not a model, the entire unit gains +1 Attack-- this would mean each individual model in a unit.

This is why the Pyrovore rocks, and this is why you should upgrade your Hive Tyrant with this ability (and have Lashwhips, characteristic tests can be modified, p.8 Rulebook)--- anyone who denies the Initiative test effecting each model, to be consistent within reading the rules, would have to follow the same paradigm for all other rules that effect units.

[DarkLink]

While using the Aura of Fervor rule, I had some questions.


Which model in the unit gets the +1A? Is that up to the controlling player? Does the same model in the unit that got +1A get the same +1A the next round or can that change from round to round?

Alternately, its been brought to my attention that the RAI is +1A per model. I disagree with this assessment since it says that the UNIT gets +1A and not each MODEL getting +1A.

Thanks


Well the rule specifically states that all friendly UNITS within 6" get +1A ... not all friendly models. Believe me I'd love for it to be all models but I don't want to get my sportsmanship score docked for trying to powergame.


the unit, as described on page 3 is an entity made up of individual parts--sometimes singular, other times, many models.

I tried to argue this point with the Acid Blood. They are worded the same, and should be treated the same:

Acid Blood, p. 84 Tyranid Codex: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood suffers in close combat, the enemy UNIT that struck the blow must pass an Initiative test or suffer a wound. No armour saves or cover saves may be taken against these wounds and casualties count towards combat resolution. Walkers instead suffer a glancing hit on the D6 roll of a 4+."

Aura of Fervour, p. 51 Codex Blood Angels: "All friendly UNITS within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack."

Since Acid Blood effects the UNIT not a model, the entire unit must make an Initiative test-- this would mean testing each individual model in a unit.

Since Aura of Fervour effects the UNIT not a model, the entire unit gains +1 Attack-- this would mean each individual model in a unit.

This is why the Pyrovore rocks, and this is why you should upgrade your Hive Tyrant with this ability (and have Lashwhips, characteristic tests can be modified, p.8 Rulebook)--- anyone who denies the Initiative test effecting each model, to be consistent within reading the rules, would have to follow the same paradigm for all other rules that effect units.

Tynskel's right. A unit consists of models. Thus anything that affects the unit affects all models within that unit.

That's also a very interesting catch on acid blood. That creates an odd situation. If the "unit" takes an initative test, does that mean a single test that affects all models, or every model in the unit takes a test.

Man, that would be a fast way of killing off an ork mob. Let it kill a pyrovore. Then "hey, roll 30 dice". That'd kill 2/3 of the squad in one go. Actually, since it's one test per wound, that would cause two tests, since pyrovores have two wounds, unless I'm mistaken.

[Tynskel]

Yes, exactly---

all of the sudden, this very 'crappy' unit is an awesome suicide unit--- exactly what its rules and fluff make it out to be---

Shoot the damn thing before it gets to you

And, if you instant death tha thing, you might take some bugs out with it.

Also- the Pyrovore is a huge model, great for blocking line of site, and screening Monsterous Creatures-- which are practically immune to the thing exploding--- not to mention, you are shooting the 45 point monster instead of the 200+ point Monster.

As for rules: Each individual guy in the unit would roll for the Acid Blood initiative test, just as each individual model rolls an extra attack for Aura of Fervour.

[Nabterayl]

Tynskel - I don't think that's the right way to analyze that situation. Can you draw a principled distinction why the canon you just articulated does not mean that a unit that loses an assault has to take one Morale check for each model in the unit? Or in the alternative, do you contend that a unit that loses an assault does take one Morale check for each model in the unit?

[Tynskel]

Tynskel - I don't think that's the right way to analyze that situation. Can you draw a principled distinction why the canon you just articulated does not mean that a unit that loses an assault has to take one Morale check for each model in the unit? Or in the alternative, do you contend that a unit that loses an assault does take one Morale check for each model in the unit?

Sure thing:

Cites: Unless I specifically state a codex, the page numbers refer to the Main Rulebook.

p. 8
"LEADERSHIP TESTS
Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like MORALE checks) are different from other tests. In the case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added together, as explained earlier). If the result is equal to or less than the model's Leadership, the test is passed.
If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value."

The Ld test, one roll for the entire unit. Same with Moral Checks (p. 43), basically a special Ld check. And with pinning- which states that pinning checks are Ld checks (p.31).

Note, for example, you declare a unit's shooting (p.16), but individual models shoot their weapons-- each making their own characteristic tests, not a unit wide check. When it comes to checks that follow, (Example: Strength vs Toughness), an individual model is always checking against an individual model, with many many references to 'keep things simple' the majority value of a characteristic in a unit is used to keep the game moving quickly (p.19, 37, 38).

Like shooting, individual models fight in close combat (p.35), and individual models make the WS and S/T checks with using the 'average' skills for the opposing side to speed things up (p.37, 38).

The wording in the Tyranid codex is explicit in its use of unit, instead of model.
Acid Blood (p.84 Tyranids), states a UNIT takes the initiative check--- it would have stated, 'the model that struck the blow' takes the initiative check, to denote an individual model.

Because the unit makes the Initiative Check, each individual model must take the test, because a unit is made up of models (p. 3).

Everything in the game effects individual models, unless noted otherwise in the rulebook. (difficult terrain and movement, for example: p.11)

Rules, like Aura of Fervour (p.51 Blood Angels), effect all the individual models in the unit--this is effecting the attacks characteristic, specifically. Many many many codexes have powers that effect an entire unit- every model in the unit.

[Nabterayl]

Oh, I agree about the Sanguinor. It's the principle you're using to get there that I'm not convinced about. It does not follow from the fact that a unit is made up of models that "unit" is interchangeable with "each model in the unit," and you seem to be making that jump.

[ashnaile]

sorry tynskel thats not how it works, the unit takes the init test ,so you take the test vs the majority init, if failed you suffer 1 wounfd with no save.

Saying the unit takes the test doesnt imply that every model in the unit rolls separately ... do you do seperate hit and run rolls? If i cared enough i could find at least a dozen other things your interpretation of that wording that break the game.

also the buff effects every model in a unit within 6" of the sanguinor.

[DarkLink]

I think another issue is that it states that the unit takes "a wound" on a failed initiative test. The way it's worded just sounds like a single initiative test, and a single wound, since, as Nab pointed out that "unit" and "every model in the unit" are not necessarily interchangeable.

[Nabterayl]

This isn't really a RAW thing, I think. What's needed here is a good old fashioned canon of construction. For every Acid Blood there's an Inspiring Presence, after all. For every cover save there's a hit and run.

The canon I'd suggest is that if a unit can do something, then references to the unit doing something mean that the unit does it once, and otherwise, every model in the unit does it.

[Tynskel]

sorry tynskel thats not how it works, the unit takes the init test ,so you take the test vs the majority init, if failed you suffer 1 wounfd with no save.

Saying the unit takes the test doesnt imply that every model in the unit rolls separately ... do you do seperate hit and run rolls? If i cared enough i could find at least a dozen other things your interpretation of that wording that break the game.

also the buff effects every model in a unit within 6" of the sanguinor.



hahaha--- nice citing there--- I also showed that the book explicitly states when a unit only rolls once-- movement and Ld checks--- p.11 a unit moves as fast as the slowest model-- why you only do one check. Ld: based off the model with highest leadership.


But Clearly, you didn't read my post--- all the examples I have shown always show individual models, and units effecting every single model, except for moving and Ld.


Where does the buff for Sanguinor say Every Model in the Unit receives the buff?? It doesn't. It just says every unit within 6" receives +1 attack.


What I am pointing out is that +1 attack is a buff to the Attack Characteristic. Acid Blood is a Test against the Initiative Characteristic---- you have not cited examples that support your theory--- I have!

[Tynskel]

This isn't really a RAW thing, I think. What's needed here is a good old fashioned canon of construction. For every Acid Blood there's an Inspiring Presence, after all. For every cover save there's a hit and run.

The canon I'd suggest is that if a unit can do something, then references to the unit doing something mean that the unit does it once, and otherwise, every model in the unit does it.

hahahah! Your examples are horrible:

Hit and Run is Moving--- the rulebook explicitly states that moving is roll once for the entire squad.

Inspiring Presence is a characteristic buff-- all friendly units receive + 1 to a characteristic-- how is this different from the UNIT takes a test?

Your examples are not good--- I showed in my earlier post where movement and Ld take place.

You need to pull out an example to a characteristic, other than Leadership or movement (the book is quite clear about these two), where the buff says unit, and only one model is effected.

[Tynskel]

I think another issue is that it states that the unit takes "a wound" on a failed initiative test. The way it's worded just sounds like a single initiative test, and a single wound, since, as Nab pointed out that "unit" and "every model in the unit" are not necessarily interchangeable.

That's one you could go either way on: if it said you take multiple wounds, it would really really confusing.

It says takes a wound, because when you fail, you only take one wound. You don't take 5 (pulling a number outta my butt) on one individual guy.

The rule specifically states the UNIT takes the test--- and I have shown everywhere in the book UNIT means every single model in the UNIT.

EVERY other Characteristic Test in the game (except for Ld) states INDIVIDUAL model takes the test, they do not state UNIT.

[Tynskel]

Oh, I agree about the Sanguinor. It's the principle you're using to get there that I'm not convinced about. It does not follow from the fact that a unit is made up of models that "unit" is interchangeable with "each model in the unit," and you seem to be making that jump.

Why do you agree for Sanguinor??

That makes no sense to agree for Sanguinor--- a buff to a UNIT's Attack Characteristic, but not a test against a UNIT's Characteristic.

That simply makes no sense. There is no precedent in the book that Characteristic Tests are taking only once by a unit--- they explicitly state an individual model, the book on page 3 states that units are made up of models-- why would a buff to a unit only effect one model? Why would a de-buff to a unit only effect one model? There is no Precedent in the book that states that when a UNIT receives a buff that only ONE model gets the buff.

You have to be consistent: If Sanguinor buffs everyone model in an individual unit, because the rule states that it applies to a unit, then the same goes for a characteristic test applied to a unit.

[Tynskel]

Insane Bravado: He and his UNIT gain +D3 bonus to a characteristic (p. 55 Space Wolves)
Living Legend: All friendly MODELS within 18" get +1 to a characteristic (p. 56 Space Wolves) not this one doesn't effect units- only effects models.
Aura of Fervour: all friendly UNITS within 6" have +1 to a characteristic (p. 51 blood angels)
Inspiring Presence: all friendly UNITS within 12" of Pedro Kantor receive +1 to a characteristic. (p. 90 space marines)

Acid Blood: ...the enemy UNIT that struck the blow must pass a characteristic test... (p.84 Tyranids)


You need to be consistent.

Leadership Tests are the only characteristic that is one roll for an entire unit--- it makes sense, the unit is tied to each other, and if some start running, they must move as a group, as per the rules on p. 11

[Nabterayl]

I agree for Sanguinor because units don't attack in close combat. There is no way for a unit, qua unit, to gain +1A. On the other hand, there is a way for a unit, qua unit, to take a wound, or to take an Initiative test. I am being consistent - I'm applying the canon I articulated in my last post.

[Xas]

haha now out of a sudden the pyrovore makes sense :D

and for you discussing the space wolves effects you should read the FAQ. they have changed many passages and may also ahve changed ones which are discussed here.

expect a FAQ to say "every modell in a unit that has at least one modell within xyz " of abc gets +1attack."

[musical-fool]

Alternately, its been brought to my attention that the RAI is +1A per model. I disagree with this assessment since it says that the UNIT gets +1A and not each MODEL getting +1A.

I would go along with the Chapter Banner ruling that states that every member of the squad gains +1 attack (as long as the barer is alive).

In my opinion this makes more sense as the Sanguinor acts as a living/breathing/murdering banner who creates such awe within those who see him that it moves them to acts of even more blood-spilling...

[Tynskel]

I agree for Sanguinor because units don't attack in close combat. There is no way for a unit, qua unit, to gain +1A. On the other hand, there is a way for a unit, qua unit, to take a wound, or to take an Initiative test. I am being consistent - I'm applying the canon I articulated in my last post.

you are inconsistent, if you read my earlier post, the wounds are are a series of individual models shooting individuals, taken against an average group roll to speed up the game.

You are being consistent within your selection process and view, yes.

However, when you take the entire context of the rules, and all the pages I cited, you are incorrectly applying the initiative test.

Within the context of the rules, Characteristic Tests are ALWAYS taking by individual models. (the noted exception is Ld--which we have explained) In the context of the book, when a UNIT must do something, every single model is effected by this outcome.

[Tynskel]

I would go along with the Chapter Banner ruling that states that every member of the squad gains +1 attack (as long as the barer is alive).

In my opinion this makes more sense as the Sanguinor acts as a living/breathing/murdering banner who creates such awe within those who see him that it moves them to acts of even more blood-spilling...

Those are two, separate rules. They are worded differently. Also, the Sangiunor's wording is the more common wording.

The a characteristic value is changed.
The Acid Blood Rule is a test against a characteristic value.

Both of them apply to a unit.

[Tynskel]

haha now out of a sudden the pyrovore makes sense :D

and for you discussing the space wolves effects you should read the FAQ. they have changed many passages and may also ahve changed ones which are discussed here.

expect a FAQ to say "every modell in a unit that has at least one modell within xyz " of abc gets +1attack."

This is not the case, I looked up the Space Wolf FAQ:

Q. How does Ragnar Blackmane’s Insane
Bravado bonus interact with Berserk Charge?
A. The unit would gain +D3 Attacks when it
charges, with a minimum of +2 (as this is the
minimum bonus conferred by the Berserk
Charge ability) – these effects do not stack.Q. Does Murderous Hurricane require the power
to hit or wound its target to affect them?


They did not change the wording---

you could interpret this to mean +D3 extra attacks, but EVERYONE applies this to every model within a unit.

How is this any different from Acid Blood-- something that occurs in close combat, and specifically states unit, not model.

[Nabterayl]

you are inconsistent, if you read my earlier post, the wounds are are a series of individual models shooting individuals, taken against an average group roll to speed up the game.
That is not true. Wounds are a series of individual models shooting at a unit, collectively. The unit accrues a number of wounds, which are then allocated to individual buckets of models, each of which takes its saves collectively, and removes individual models based on the nature of the failed saves.


However, when you take the entire context of the rules, and all the pages I cited, you are incorrectly applying the initiative test.

Within the context of the rules, Characteristic Tests are ALWAYS taking by individual models.
Do you have a basis for this other than the fact that units are composed of models? Using your rule, how would you roll a Hit and Run test undertaken by a group of five models, each with Initiative 2?

[DarkLink]

Within the context of the rules, Characteristic Tests are ALWAYS taking by individual models. (the noted exception is Ld--which we have explained) In the context of the book, when a UNIT must do something, every single model is effected by this outcome.

There's nothing here that indicates that it must be a test for every singe model in the unit, though. It could just as easily be that you allocate a single initiative test to a model in the unit, just like you would a wound (as Nab pointed out above).

[Fellend]

I'm sorry but i've looked at page 84 in the tyranid codex and I've looked the pyrovore, I can't find anything about acid blood.

Did however find the Horror thing on the Hive Tyrants, can black templar assault him without taking a test as they are fearless in assault?

[Tynskel]

I'm sorry but i've looked at page 84 in the tyranid codex and I've looked the pyrovore, I can't find anything about acid blood.

p. 84 of codex tyranids--- acid blood is the first Biomorph entry.

[Tynskel]

There's nothing here that indicates that it must be a test for every singe model in the unit, though. It could just as easily be that you allocate a single initiative test to a model in the unit, just like you would a wound (as Nab pointed out above).


By your use of the wording:

single initiative test, 1 model take s wound.

unit receives Plus 1 attack, 1 model receives the attack.



There has to be consistency in the use of the rules.

[Tynskel]

I agree for Sanguinor because units don't attack in close combat. There is no way for a unit, qua unit, to gain +1A. On the other hand, there is a way for a unit, qua unit, to take a wound, or to take an Initiative test. I am being consistent - I'm applying the canon I articulated in my last post.

This is completely incorrect

1 model in the unit could receive 1 attack--- the unit receives +1 attack

1 model in the unit takes the initiative test--- the unit receives an initiative test


That's the problem with your wording--- it works both ways on both rules.

If you apply the rule one way, it must be applied the same way to all similarly written rules.

Another Example:

Spirit Leech effects embarked units (p. 58 codex Tyranids), (p. 66 rulebook)

Blood Chalice radiates out from the hull (p. 48 C: Blood Angels), p. 66 rulebook

If you were to deny one--- lets say, Spirit Leech, then the other cannot use the same rules-- they are written with the same wording.

[Tynskel]

in my earlier posts, I have cited multiple sources where the 'unit' means every model. The one exception is Leadership. The rest of the book always uses unit=every model.

If you guys just do not want to read all those sources, and just ignore all the examples and consistencies that are in the main rulebook--- that just doesn't make sense. BUT this is a game, so some people will do this...


However, at a tournament, where RAW is king, and unless the tournament rules state otherwise--- the rules HAVE to be consistently played.

If someone says-- Acid Blood only effects one model, my retort is Aura of Fervour only effects one model--- same wording-- same application of rules.

[Nabterayl]

Whoa, dude, calm down. We are reading the rules, but you haven't quoted anything other than the fact that units consist of models, from which it does not follow that "unit" and "each model in the unit" are interchangeable. If you can provide a proof of their logical equivalence I'll concede the point, but you haven't done so. Nor have you quoted any provision in the rules telling us that "unit" should be interpreted that way. If you want a response to each of your examples, please just say so - most of the responses (my responses, anyway) will boil down to the aforementioned canon of construction, which is why I haven't bothered. No disrespect intended.


This is completely incorrect

1 model in the unit could receive 1 attack--- the unit receives +1 attack
Which model? How would you decide?

Can I reiterate my question about Hit & Run? For those who don't have their rulebooks handy:


The unit using the hit & run ability must take an Initiative test. If the test is failed nothing happens and the models remain locked in the fight. If the test is passed, the unit breaks from combat and immediately moves up to 3D6" in a straight line in any direction ...

Deffkoptaz are I2 and have the Hit & Run ability. Let's say I have a unit of 5 deffkoptaz locked in close combat, and at the end of the Assault phase I decide to have them use their Hit & Run ability. Tynskel, do you contend that I would roll five Initiative tests? If so, how would I tell if "the test" is passed, or if "the test" is failed? Suppose, for instance, I roll a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4, and a 5. Does my unit break from combat and immediately move up to 3D6" in a straight line etc., or does nothing happen and my models remain locked in the fight?

EDIT: Okay, let me try rephrasing my position, because maybe people aren't used to living with "canons of construction" ...

What's going on is this. Tynskel contends that every time a unit is called on to make a test, unless otherwise specified, each model in that unit must make the test; and likewise, every time a unit is given a characteristic modifier, each model in that unit receives the characteristic modifier. I am contending that every time a unit is called on to make a test, unless otherwise specified, the unit makes a single test; but every time a unit is given a characteristic modifier, each model in that unit receives the characteristic modifier. I am contending, essentially, that making a test and receiving characteristic modifiers are two different things, which can be (and are) treated differently by the rules.

[Tynskel]

Whoa, dude, calm down. We are reading the rules, but you haven't quoted anything other than the fact that units consist of models, from which it does not follow that "unit" and "each model in the unit" are interchangeable. If you can provide a proof of their logical equivalence I'll concede the point, but you haven't done so. Nor have you quoted any provision in the rules telling us that "unit" should be interpreted that way. If you want a response to each of your examples, please just say so - most of the responses (my responses, anyway) will boil down to the aforementioned canon of construction, which is why I haven't bothered. No disrespect intended.


Which model? How would you decide?

Can I reiterate my question about Hit & Run? For those who don't have their rulebooks handy:


The unit using the hit & run ability must take an Initiative test. If the test is failed nothing happens and the models remain locked in the fight. If the test is passed, the unit breaks from combat and immediately moves up to 3D6" in a straight line in any direction ...

Deffkoptaz are I2 and have the Hit & Run ability. Let's say I have a unit of 5 deffkoptaz locked in close combat, and at the end of the Assault phase I decide to have them use their Hit & Run ability. Tynskel, do you contend that I would roll five Initiative tests? If so, how would I tell if "the test" is passed, or if "the test" is failed? Suppose, for instance, I roll a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4, and a 5. Does my unit break from combat and immediately move up to 3D6" in a straight line etc., or does nothing happen and my models remain locked in the fight?

This argument is coming down to improper citing of sources. When citing a source, you cannot cite single sentences: there is no meaning. Context changes how the rules are used. When citing a single sentence, you have to give context to the situation. Context is not defining individual words in that singular sentence, context is looking at all the material involved.

read ALL the other USRs p.75

Hit and Run states unit

Note-- even though this rule is a characteristic test, this rule involves movement, units cannot move out of coherency- in this case, you could not have some models run and others stay. Which is why the rule states unit not models.

This is an example of using 'context' in application to a rule.

Infiltrate states unit
Rage states unit, also modified by movement on page 11
Scouts states unit
Stealth States unit
Turbo-Boosters says unit (makes sense, bound by page 11-- however, not characteristic based)
Fearless states unit

Counter-attack states model (characteristic based)
Slow and purposeful states model, also modified by movement on page 11
Feel no pain states model
furious charge states model (characteristic based)
eternal warrior states model

'Hit and Run' is the ONLY USR that involves a characteristic and states unit wide. All other characteristic based USRs are by model basis.

Poor example.

Aura of Fervour The unit receives +1 Attack--- characteristics are on a model by model basis (p. 6-8)-- only one model would receive the attack.
The unit receives Furious Charge (blood chalice p.48 codex blood angels)--- the rule itself only applies to individual models. This means, only one model receives Furious Charge.
The unit receives Feel No Pain (blood chalice p.48 codex blood angels)--- the rule itself only applies to individual models. This means, only one model receives Furious Charge.
Acid Blood, the Unit takes an initiative test (p. 84 codex Tyranids)-- p. 8 the rule itself only applies to individual models.


The conventions are not pick and choose when or how to apply the rules- the conventions are to apply the rules equally.

Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives +1 Attack- all models receive +1 Attack
Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives Furious Charge- All models receive Furious Charge
Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives Feel No Pain- All models receive Feel No Pain

it would Logically Follow: Unit Receives Initiative Check-- all models receive initiative check.


Your convention for unit test = 1 roll---- not very strong---

read pages: 6-8, 16-19, 35, 37-38---- all of these sections state Characteristic Tests and all involve individual models. p. 75 is the only page where there is a reference to a single test for an entire unit test. p. 40 also explicitly states that initiative characteristic is taken by the group.

That's the problem here--- you only have 1 Data Point.

I have at least a dozen that refer to always individual models taking tests.

1 Data point cannot formulate a trend line

multiple data points can--- and the result here is that Characteristic Tests are Taken on a Model by Model basis, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

[Gotthammer]

Sweeping advances use an initiative check based on each unit's Initiative characteristic. It specifically sates that if a unit has a mixed initiative use the majority or the highest with no majority, indicating one test for the whole unit.

Also, as you quote, Acid Blood has an effect on a unit - and a unit is a single entity made up of individual models. The unit tests, not the models. Had the rules said 'every model in the unit must pass an In test or take a wound', yeah, but it clearly says the unit must pass a test or suffer a single wound.
So regardless of anything else it says the unit (potentially made up of many models) only ever takes one wound.

[Tynskel]

Sweeping advances use an initiative check based on each unit's Initiative characteristic. It specifically sates that if a unit has a mixed initiative use the majority or the highest with no majority, indicating one test for the whole unit.

Also, as you quote, Acid Blood has an effect on a unit - and a unit is a single entity made up of individual models. The unit tests, not the models. Had the rules said 'every model in the unit must pass an In test or take a wound', yeah, but it clearly says the unit must pass a test or suffer a single wound.
So regardless of anything else it says the unit (potentially made up of many models) only ever takes one wound.

That is incorrect application of logic, and another example of incorrect citing. Once again, you have no context for your cite of what I said. You are choosing to select individual words to benefit your argument-- you need to read my entire passage--- the rule that you just cited, I have in my example already.

Why does Jaws of the World Wolf EXPLICITLY state models for the initiative check--- by your convention, it should just state UNIT.

Also, the p. 40 reference you are referring to is an example where the book SPECIFICALLY changes the convention of the rules.

The Acid Blood Rule no where states a change in convention to the rules.

[Nabterayl]

This argument is coming down to improper citing of sources. When citing a source, you cannot cite single sentences: there is no meaning. Context changes how the rules are used. When citing a single sentence, you have to give context to the situation. Context is not defining individual words in that singular sentence, context is looking at all the material involved.

read ALL the other USRs p.75
Okay:

Counter-Attack. Unit must take a Leadership test, which we both agree is a single test taken by the unit collectively. +1A given to explicitly given all models in the unit upon successful test. Not a useful data point, because "all models in the unit" is stated.
Eternal Warrior. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Fearless. Does not reference either tests or characteristics, so not a useful data point. Doubly not relevant because it states explicitly how to deal with the various combinations possible through Independent Characters joining units.
Feel No Pain. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Fleet. References units, but does not reference units taking characteristic tests. Both you and I come to the same conclusion on this one, so not a useful data point for resolving whether either of our methodologies are in error.
Hit & Run. Does reference units taking tests, so a useful data point for resolving whether either of our methodologies are in error. Addressed below.
Infiltrate. References units, but not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Move Through Cover. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Night Vision/Acute Senses. Not a useful data point, because it (i) applies by its terms to models rather than units and (ii) explicitly addresses how to deal with units where not all constituent models have this USR.
Preferred Enemy. Does not reference either units or models, but would never come up as units never make collective to-hit rolls in close combat. I'd just as soon leave this one alone, unless you feel there's something to be gained from discussing it.
Rage. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Relentless. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Scouts. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Skilled Rider. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Slow and Purposeful. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Stealth. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Stubborn. References units, but only units taking Morale tests, which are a type of Leadership test, so not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Swarms. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Tank Hunters. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Turbo-Boosters. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Which of these do you think tends to disprove the proposition that units take characteristic tests collectively, but the constituent models receive characteristic bonuses or other attributes individually? Hit & Run is the only one that seem on point to me.


Hit and Run states unit

Note-- even though this rule is a characteristic test, this rule involves movement, units cannot move out of coherency- in this case, you could not have some models run and others stay. Which is why the rule states unit not models.

This is an example of using 'context' in application to a rule.

Infiltrate states unit
Rage states unit, also modified by movement on page 11
Scouts states unit
Stealth States unit
Turbo-Boosters says unit (makes sense, bound by page 11-- however, not characteristic based)
Fearless states unit

Counter-attack states model (characteristic based)
Slow and purposeful states model, also modified by movement on page 11
Feel no pain states model
furious charge states model (characteristic based)
eternal warrior states model

'Hit and Run' is the ONLY USR that involves a characteristic and states unit wide. All other characteristic based USRs are by model basis.

Poor example.
In other words, you contend that because applying your methodology to this example produces a bad result, this example must be an exception?


Aura of Fervour The unit receives +1 Attack--- characteristics are on a model by model basis (p. 6-8)-- only one model would receive the attack.
Not what I'm suggesting. My contention is restated above: that characteristic tests are taken by units collectively, but characteristic bonuses and other attributes are applied to the constituent models individually. Applying that canon of construction to Aura of Fervour, each model in the affected unit would receive +1A.

The unit receives Furious Charge (blood chalice p.48 codex blood angels)--- the rule itself only applies to individual models. This means, only one model receives Furious Charge.
Furious Charge is not a characteristic test, so if I am right each model in the affected unit would receive Furious Charge.

The unit receives Feel No Pain (blood chalice p.48 codex blood angels)--- the rule itself only applies to individual models. This means, only one model receives Furious Charge.
Feel No Pain is not a characteristic test, so if I am right each model in the affected unit would receive Feel No Pain.

Acid Blood, the Unit takes an initiative test (p. 84 codex Tyranids)-- p. 8 the rule itself only applies to individual models.
Acid Blood does call for a characteristic test, so if I am right the unit would take a single Initiative test and if failed the "unit" would suffer "a wound," per page 84 of the tyranid codex.


The conventions are not pick and choose when or how to apply the rules- the conventions are to apply the rules equally.

Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives +1 Attack- all models receive +1 Attack
Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives Furious Charge- All models receive Furious Charge
Since EVERYONE plays: Unit Receives Feel No Pain- All models receive Feel No Pain

it would Logically Follow: Unit Receives Initiative Check-- all models receive initiative check.
Yes, but EVERYONE plays that a five-deffkopta squad rolls a single Initiative test. If your convention does not arrive at that result then your convention needs tweaking. My convention arrives at all four of these results with no tweaking at all.


Your convention for unit test = 1 roll---- not very strong---

read pages: 6-8, 16-19, 35, 37-38---- all of these sections state Characteristic Tests and all involve individual models. p. 75 is the only page where there is a reference to a single test for an entire unit test. p. 40 also explicitly states that initiative characteristic is taken by the group.
Yes, they do, but you're drawing a conclusion that's stronger than your data. What you're looking for is a statement that all characteristic tests are taken by the constituent models of a unit even if the statement is that the unit take a characteristic test.
Pages 6-8 say that "a model might have to take a test on one of its characteristics." That does not support the conclusion you're looking for.
16-19 don't reference characteristic tests at all (you can tell because none of the rolls called for follow the procedure laid out on page 8).
35 doesn't reference characteristic tests either.
37-38 don't reference characteristic tests for the same reason that 16-19 don't.

The data points we want to examine are those where units are called upon to take a characteristic test. So far I've put forward one, where the rule in question calls for a unit to take an initiative test and clearly contemplates a single roll, and you agree that in that case the characteristic test is not taken by the constituent models.

[Tynskel]

Okay:

Counter-Attack. Unit must take a Leadership test, which we both agree is a single test taken by the unit collectively. +1A given to explicitly given all models in the unit upon successful test. Not a useful data point, because "all models in the unit" is stated.
Eternal Warrior. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Fearless. Does not reference either tests or characteristics, so not a useful data point. Doubly not relevant because it states explicitly how to deal with the various combinations possible through Independent Characters joining units.
Feel No Pain. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Fleet. References units, but does not reference units taking characteristic tests. Both you and I come to the same conclusion on this one, so not a useful data point for resolving whether either of our methodologies are in error.
Hit & Run. Does reference units taking tests, so a useful data point for resolving whether either of our methodologies are in error. Addressed below.
Infiltrate. References units, but not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Move Through Cover. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Night Vision/Acute Senses. Not a useful data point, because it (i) applies by its terms to models rather than units and (ii) explicitly addresses how to deal with units where not all constituent models have this USR.
Preferred Enemy. Does not reference either units or models, but would never come up as units never make collective to-hit rolls in close combat. I'd just as soon leave this one alone, unless you feel there's something to be gained from discussing it.
Rage. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Relentless. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Scouts. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Skilled Rider. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Slow and Purposeful. Does not reference units, so not a useful data point.
Stealth. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Stubborn. References units, but only units taking Morale tests, which are a type of Leadership test, so not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Swarms. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Tank Hunters. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Turbo-Boosters. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates. References units, but not units taking characteristic tests. Not a useful data point for the same reasons as Fleet.
Which of these do you think tends to disprove the proposition that units take characteristic tests collectively, but the constituent models receive characteristic bonuses or other attributes individually? Hit & Run is the only one that seem on point to me.


In other words, you contend that because applying your methodology to this example produces a bad result, this example must be an exception?


Not what I'm suggesting. My contention is restated above: that characteristic tests are taken by units collectively, but characteristic bonuses and other attributes are applied to the constituent models individually. Applying that canon of construction to Aura of Fervour, each model in the affected unit would receive +1A.

Furious Charge is not a characteristic test, so if I am right each model in the affected unit would receive Furious Charge.

Feel No Pain is not a characteristic test, so if I am right each model in the affected unit would receive Feel No Pain.

Acid Blood does call for a characteristic test, so if I am right the unit would take a single Initiative test and if failed the "unit" would suffer "a wound," per page 84 of the tyranid codex.


Yes, but EVERYONE plays that a five-deffkopta squad rolls a single Initiative test. If your convention does not arrive at that result then your convention needs tweaking. My convention arrives at all four of these results with no tweaking at all.


Yes, they do, but you're drawing a conclusion that's stronger than your data. What you're looking for is a statement that all characteristic tests are taken by the constituent models of a unit even if the statement is that the unit take a characteristic test.
Pages 6-8 say that "a model might have to take a test on one of its characteristics." That does not support the conclusion you're looking for.
16-19 don't reference characteristic tests at all (you can tell because none of the rolls called for follow the procedure laid out on page 8).
35 doesn't reference characteristic tests either.
37-38 don't reference characteristic tests for the same reason that 16-19 don't.

The data points we want to examine are those where units are called upon to take a characteristic test. So far I've put forward one, where the rule in question calls for a unit to take an initiative test and clearly contemplates a single roll, and you agree that in that case the characteristic test is not taken by the constituent models.


Alright, Sorry Nab, but you gotta actually bust open the book and read it-- I don't recommend making stuff up.


The Counter Attack rule CLEARLY states every model in the unit benefits from +1 Attack:

Blood Chalice, Aura of Fervour, and many many many many other such codex rules only state the Unit gains the benefit--- yet, the convention is to apply to every model--- they do not follow the wording that is in the Rulebook, which is 'apply to every model a characteristic buff'




p. 6-8 What are characteristics, and how characteristic test are done

p. 16-19, shooting is a BS test, Strength Vs Toughness Test, Armor Test-- cover save does not count, because cover save has SPECIFIC instructions that the test are model by model with unit wide conditions.

p. 35 how models are engaged, who gets to fight--- this is important to the Acid Blood rule, because the acid blood rule does not state model that attacked, it states unit- p.35 specifically defines models and units.

p. 37-38 are WS characteristic Tests and Strength vs Toughness. All of these are done on a Model by Model Basis--- the rules then use a single value for streamlining the process, however, every single model engaged takes these tests.


The Unit shoots, model by model taking tests.
The Unit wounds, model by model taking tests.
The Unit fights in close combat, model by model taking tests.
The Unit armor saves, model by model taking tests.


If this isn't amazingly clear, I don't know what is.


'Hit and Run' is the ONLY place in the rule book where a characteristic test is poorly defined--- however, due to the context of movement p.11, the rule mechanically makes sense that only one test is rolled for the average initiative for the group. p. 40 Sweeping advance is a very very narrow specific test and is directly defined within the passage.

All other tests in the game are Model by Model.

Acid Blood, states the unit takes an initiative test. This means every model is effected unless specifically defined--- follows the same conventions that all other special rules do.

[Raxximous]

That is incorrect application of logic, and another example of incorrect citing. Once again, you have no context for your cite of what I said. You are choosing to select individual words to benefit your argument-- you need to read my entire passage--- the rule that you just cited, I have in my example already.

Why does Jaws of the World Wolf EXPLICITLY state models for the initiative check--- by your convention, it should just state UNIT.

Also, the p. 40 reference you are referring to is an example where the book SPECIFICALLY changes the convention of the rules.

The Acid Blood Rule no where states a change in convention to the rules.

Jaws of the World Wolf explicitly states models because you effect those models, not the unit.

[DarkLink]

Whoa, dude, calm down.

Yeah, he tends to do that a lot. So I don't bother trying to get into a serious argument anymore. It's just not worth the effort.

[synack]

Yep, noticed that myself.

[Tynskel]

pow! oh
oh
oh my heart, you sniped my heart...


Sorry...

that I went through the book citing page after page after page to show trends and conventions.

I'll just remember for next time that using actual evidence from the book doesn't matter.

It isn't that it isn't worth arguing with me--- its more that I do my homework-- a half @ssed answer won't cut it with me. 'conventions of canon' would work if Nab was citing actual canon. The problem was that he wasn't citing any canon. And when I pointed that out--- he goes-- Calm Down--- I did not say anything that needed to say 'calm down' all I did was cite a counter-argument.


There are numerous examples of how characteristic tests are done in the book- my earlier posts pointed out huge sections of the book. To discount that is redonkulous...


Has anyone noticed that on the forums that it is always okay for a unit to give beneficial stuff to one's own army--- but the instant that someone suggests something that might hurt someone else's army, oh my-- it must be wrong!

[Tynskel]

Jaws of the World Wolf explicitly states models because you effect those models, not the unit.

That is not a counter argument to the statement that all models in the unit have to take the Initiative Test.


This is a comparison---

acid blood states the unit takes the test
Jaws states an individual model.

The rules conventions through a series of pages states that individual models take characteristic tests, unless specifically stated so in the rule book. For followup material, p.3, 6-8, 17-19, 35, 37-38.

An example of an explicit only one die roll made characteristic test is p.40

'Hit and Run' p.75 is the ONLY rule in the book that is hairy in its characteristic test use--- however, when reviewing all applicable rules, movement sets the precedent: p. 11.

However, the end result is applied to the entire unit.

[Nabterayl]

p. 6-8 What are characteristics, and how characteristic test are done

p. 16-19, shooting is a BS test, Strength Vs Toughness Test, Armor Test-- cover save does not count, because cover save has SPECIFIC instructions that the test are model by model with unit wide conditions.

p. 35 how models are engaged, who gets to fight--- this is important to the Acid Blood rule, because the acid blood rule does not state model that attacked, it states unit- p.35 specifically defines models and units.

p. 37-38 are WS characteristic Tests and Strength vs Toughness. All of these are done on a Model by Model Basis--- the rules then use a single value for streamlining the process, however, every single model engaged takes these tests.
Okay, look ... are you resting your argument on the fact that every other type of test is done on an individual model basis, and from that we should infer that the convention for characteristic tests is the same? I don't find that persuasive. I am contending that there is a different convention for characteristic tests undertaken by units and other types of tests, or bonus characteristics or bonus attributes (e.g., Feel No Pain) undertaken by or given to units.

I am challenging you to discuss the convention for rules that tell a unit to take characteristic tests only. I agree with you that the convention for rules that tell a unit to do other things, such as make a to-hit roll, or gain a characteristic bonus, or gain a special rule (e.g., Feel No Pain), are applied to the individual models that constitute such unit. I am contending that there is a different convention for rules that tell a unit to take a characteristic test.

Limit your data points to rules that tell units to take a characteristic test as defined above. Then let's discuss those and see where the trend line points. Is that a debate you're willing to have?

[Tynskel]

Now, lets limit the case to your argument:

Leadership tests: The rulebook explicitly states why this is a unit wide test. The rulebook also states that Ld is completely different from other characteristic test. This cannot be used in this argument.

Hit n' Run- unit takes an initiative test--- however, there is a lot more to that rule than just taking an initiative test--- the rule directly involves movement, and there is precedent (p.11) that units move together. This gets thrown out, because too many factors and variables are involved--- you cannot label the initiative test as an independent variable in this rule.

Acid Blood- unit takes an initiative test--- this rule, is NOT bound by movement. This rule is not bound by any precedent that states that only one test is made, only one model is effected.

p. 40-- is the only other test that is one roll for a unit-- However, the rulebook Explicitly states why. Also, like Hit and Run, this rule is once again tied to movement (p.11), and for this reason, cannot be used as a useful leaping point- due to the same reasons brought up in Hit n' Run--- not an independent variable.

Acid Blood does not make this distinction- the initiative test does not depend on the unit's ability to move- so there is no limiting factor.

This leads us to look up what is a unit--- p.3 says a unit is made up of a series of models. This is the only bit of information we have to go with. If a unit must make the test, then it is logical to conclude that each element within the unit must take the test.

This is where expanding the scope of the argument becomes important.

Acid Blood is a Unit Special Ability--- this special ability effects other units.

Aura of Fervour is a Unit Special Ability--- this special ability effects other units.

These individual rules maybe doing different things- one is a characteristic modifier, the other is test, but the conventions for one is to apply to each model in the unit. Since they are both special rules applied to a unit, it is not a large leap to conclude that they should be applied the same way.

In either case, the rulebook has no defined precedent for both.

EDIT: You also need to include how Characteristic tests are made-- model by model basis--- lots of pages: p.17-19, 35, 37-38.

The unit special abilities, like Aura of Fervour have been applied in the model by model basis.

[addamsfamily36]

Ok first off can someone give me the Exact description/entry for UNITS in the 40k Rulebook? (I would look myself, but its t home and im at uni so its a long trek (200miles) just to pick up one book.)

[Tynskel]

Ok first off can someone give me the Exact description/entry for UNITS in the 40k Rulebook? (I would look myself, but its t home and im at uni so its a long trek (200miles) just to pick up one book.)

If you really want to get involved in the argument, you really need your book--- I have too many pages referenced to quote every rule--- there are too many factors involved in this argument for this to be resolved from one line of one page.

[DarkLink]

A unit is just a group of models (or even a singular model) that are purchased together, and follow certain rules like unit coherency. That's about as concise as you can get.

[greenstuff777]

IT APPLIES TO ALL MODELS WITHIN 6" just like the company banner for all marines it has been said he is a free chapter banner for all!!!!

[Nabterayl]

I don't think we can throw out those cases so easily, Tynskel. Here's how I see it:


We come across a rule, such as Hit & Run, Acid Blood, or so forth, which calls upon a unit to take a characteristic test. No rule specifies, generally, how units take characteristic tests, so we have to infer from what is specified.

One way to infer is to look at how units do other things, such as make to-hit rolls, or receive characteristic bonuses (e.g., the unit receives +1A), or receive non-characteristic special attributes (e.g., the unit receives Feel No Pain). Generally speaking, units do those other things by having each constituent model do the thing in question, so we might infer that units should take characteristic tests the same way.

However, if we look at the cases where units take characteristic tests and the rulebook is explicit, I think we have reason to believe that the convention for units taking characteristic tests is different. Here's what I'm thinking of:

Page 8 (Leadership tests, for those of you following along from home) does not say that Leadership tests are taken by a unit collectively. What it actually says is, "If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value." That sentence assumes that when a unit takes a Leadership test, it will do so collectively. That is consistent with both hypotheses - it's consistent with a general convention that all characteristic tests are taken by a unit collectively, and with a specific convention that only Leadership tests are taken by a unit collectively.

Page 40 (sweeping advances) similarly does not actually specify that the opposed Initiative tests are taken by a unit collectively. What it actually says is "Both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add their Initiative value to the result. ... In a unit with mixed Initiative characteristics, count the majority value, or the highest if there is no majority." Now, to be sure, this language is not consistent with the individual-test convention. But note that the collective-test convention is not specified, but assumed. Note also that the unit is spoken of as having an Initiative value of its own, separate (though derived) from the Initiative value of its constituent models (page 19 likewise speaks of units having their own Toughness value). That's important, because as page 8 makes clear, you can't take a characteristic test if you don't have a characteristic. If units didn't have their own Initiative values, or Leadership values, they couldn't take Initiative or Leadership tests. But units clearly do have some characteristics, and it is the unit's characteristic that is being tested against here.

Page 75 also does not specify that the Initiative test is taken collectively, nor need we infer that from the fact that movement is involved. As page 12 makes clear, models in a unit always move individually ("When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance"), provided that after each model in the unit has moved, the unit as a whole must remain in coherency. In an individual-test world, there is nothing preventing one model from passing its Hit & Run test and another in the same unit failing its Hit & Run test - the model that passed would receive its 3d6" of movement and be able to move normally, with the caveat that it would have to end up in coherency with the model that failed the test. That would be totally legal. But it is clearly not what Hit & Run assumes happens. Hit & Run speaks of "the" test, which affects "the models." The whole paragraph is clearly written with the assumption that when the unit makes an Initiative test, it makes one test.

So what we have, in my view, is this:


When units receive characteristic bonuses or special non-characteristic attributes, the individual constituent models receive those bonuses or attributes rather than the unit as a whole. By itself, this would make it most reasonable to infer that when a unit takes a characteristic test, the individual constituent models each take a test, rather than the unit as a whole. However, in two of the three cases in the main rulebook where units are called upon to take characteristic tests, it is assumed but not specified that the unit takes a single characteristic test, collectively (and the third case is ambiguous but not inconsistent with the collective-test convention). Because the collective-test convention is assumed but not specified, it is most reasonable to infer that the collective-test convention should apply to units taking characteristic tests even when the wording does not so specify or require.

[Tynskel]

IT APPLIES TO ALL MODELS WITHIN 6" just like the company banner for all marines it has been said he is a free chapter banner for all!!!!

wait, and you guys are sniping me?

This dribble, up there, makes no coherent sense--- this isn't even a clear sentence.

also, there is no citing of the sources.

[Tynskel]

you are isolating the 3 specific rules, not considering the context of their situations. These rules have specific other parts.

Hit and run involves movement
Sweeping Advance Involves movement
Almost all leadership checks involve movement or unit wide effects (like pinning)


of those instances involve movement--- p.11.


As for leadership--- the rulebook is QUITE CLEAR in defining Leadership tests in a different category than normal characteristic tests--- and all references to leadership later in the rulebook involve one roll for the unit involved. This is a NARROW definition of a test--- based off of ONE characteristic.

Acid Blood is NOT a Ld based test- Ld is so narrowly defined and referenced that it cannot applied to an initiative test.


I don't think you understand the difference between a dependent and independent situations.

The result of Hit and Run cause an immediate result of moving a unit-- there is no separation of the two-- this is an dependent relationship.

The result of a sweeping advance cause an immediate result of moving a unit-- there is no separation of the two-- this is an dependent relationship.

Because there is a dependent relationship on another category- we must look up the result of that category--- movement, p.11--- which means that units cannot split apart.


Acid Blood does NOT fall into this category--- the result of an initiative test does NOT force the unit to move. It follows ALL the OTHER characteristic tests--- which are Model by Model Basis.

Acid Blood much more closely follows the wording of other special rules--- rules that effect each model within a unit without explicitly stating so.

These other rules apply model by model basis---

why is this so hard to make this step?

There is no precedent for other special rules to effect model by model basis-- yet that is how they are applied.

Why should Acid Blood not follow the same paradigm?


You have not come up with single counter to this.

[Nabterayl]

EDIT: By the way, to summarize why we're bothering to discuss this ... everybody who has replied to this thread agrees that Aura of Fervour gives +1A to each model in the affected unit. That is, undoubtedly, the answer. The debate Tynskel and I are having is about what the principle is that makes that the answer. It's all well and good to know what the answer is, but if anybody ever calls you on it, it's better to know why.


As for leadership--- the rulebook is QUITE CLEAR in defining Leadership tests in a different category than normal characteristic tests--- and all references to leadership later in the rulebook involve one roll for the unit involved. This is a NARROW definition of a test--- based off of ONE characteristic.
Yes, it is "QUITE CLEAR," but you can't just stop paying attention to the actual text in the name of paying attention "context." If the rulebook says that Leadership tests are an exception to the normal characteristic test rules in that all Leadership tests are always taken collectively by a unit, one of the following must be true:
There is explicit text to this effect in the rulebook, which may be cited.
There is explicit text in the rulebook, which may be cited, which precludes any other option.
#2 is what "context" really means. At the end of the day, you should be able to present a citation, or string of citations, which make Leadership tests different from other characteristic tests in that they are always undertaken collectively by a unit, when a unit is called upon to take a Leadership test. So cite. Because all I'm seeing is that Leadership tests are different in that you roll 2d6.


I don't think you understand the difference between a dependent and independent situations.

The result of Hit and Run cause an immediate result of moving a unit-- there is no separation of the two-- this is an dependent relationship.

The result of a sweeping advance cause an immediate result of moving a unit-- there is no separation of the two-- this is an dependent relationship.

Because there is a dependent relationship on another category- we must look up the result of that category--- movement, p.11--- which means that units cannot split apart.
You're going too far. Page 11 means that units cannot split apart. It does not mean that models cannot move separately. In fact, models do move separately, always.



Acid Blood does NOT fall into this category--- the result of an initiative test does NOT force the unit to move. It follows ALL the OTHER characteristic tests--- which are Model by Model Basis.
Wait, which other characteristic tests are you talking about? Aura of Fervour? Rolling to hit? Feel No Pain? Blood Chalices? None of those things are characteristic tests. In this entire thread, the only rules you or anybody else has cited that are characteristic tests are Acid Blood, Hit & Run, Spirit Leech, Jaws of the World Wolf, and Sweeping Advances. Of those five, Acid Blood is ambiguous, Hit & Run clearly follows the collective-test convention, Spirit Leech clearly follows the collective-test convention, Jaws of the World Wolf doesn't call on units to take a characteristic test in the first place, and Sweeping Advances clearly follow the collective-test convention.

You've cited things which are not characteristic tests, and inferred from there to things that are.

[Tynskel]

I have cited MANY times characteristic tests. p. 17-19, 35, 37-38. These are all characteristic tests.

Individual Models do move separately, yes, but for Hit and Run- the unit MUST disengage combat-- you cannot have individual models stay-- this is where the implied singular roll comes from-- ALL MODELS disengage. They have to MOVE and maintain Coherency. (p.11, 12, 75) That's the context to the rule- Acid Blood does NOT have this stipulation.

Leadership-- (p. 8, 31, 43-44) all involve the unit as a whole moving (p.11-12). p. 8 defines that a Ld test is unique. The other pages- All cases- compulsory movement--- the unit has to move as a whole. p. 50 is for Individual models (psykers)-- this is the ONE exception for Ld test taken by individual models. Leadership, by far is the OPPOSITE of all other characteristic tests (besides Hit and Run and Sweeping Advance)- they are taken as a group and not model by model basis. The rule SPECIFICALLY cites models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value. Acid Blood does NOT have any of these stipulations.

Sweeping Advance is not even a Characteristic Test. I made a mistake-- this cannot even be included in this argument. However, if we do include this in the argument-- the Result is still dependent on an opponent disengaging from another opponent. Both Units make Moves afterward. Acid Blood does NOT have this stipulation.

All the Characteristic Tests that involve movement are taken as a singular test.

Acid Blood has nothing to do with moving--- this is why Hit and Run does not apply.
Leadership specifically states ALWAYS use highest value in a unit. Acid Blood is NOT a Ld test-- Leadership tests do not apply to this ruling.


I have cited MANY characteristic tests: WS vs WS, S vs T, BS. p. 6-8, 17-19, 35, 37-38., not just JotWW, and Spirit Leech.
Acid Blood follows the same wording as all other characteristic tests, except for one thing--- it says unit. NOT model. And units are defined on p.3, as a series of models. This implies that every single model is effected, unless otherwise stipulated.


Here's the thing--- Rules, Like Aura of Fervour, have NO precedent of each model being effected. You cannot cite one rule.

What I have found is that rules like Aura of Fervour benefit your own army, but a rule like Acid Blood hurts an opponent. WHY the distinction that if it is helpful to you, everyone gets it, but if it is negative to them, only one model is effected---- even though BOTH rules state the same word: Unit.

[Nabterayl]

I have cited MANY times characteristic tests. p. 17-19, 35, 37-38. These are all characteristic tests.

I have cited MANY characteristic tests: WS vs WS, S vs T, BS. p. 6-8, 17-19, 35, 37-38., not just JotWW, and Spirit Leech.
I don't want to keep sounding contrary, but no, you haven't. If a BS4 model makes a Ballistic Skill test, it passes on a roll of 1-4. That is a characteristic test. Page 17 describes a To Hit roll, which a BS4 model passes on a roll of 3-6. If a T3 model makes a Toughness test, it passes on a roll of 1-3. That is a characteristic test. Page 19 describes a To Wound roll, which requires consulting a table. If a T3 model and an S4 model make opposed Toughness and Strength tests, then the T3 model rolls 1d6+3 and the S4 model rolls 1d6+4, and whoever has the higher total passes (with ties to go to whoever the specific rule in question specifies). That is an opposed characteristic test. The table on page 19 is not consulted at all. Similarly, if a WS5 model takes a Weapon Skill test, it passes on a roll of 1-5. That is a characteristic test. If a WS5 model and a WS4 model take opposed Weapon Skill tests, one model rolls 1d6+5 and the other model rolls 1d6+4, and and whoever has the higher total passes (with ties to go to whoever the specific rule in question specifies). That is an opposed characteristic test. Page 37 describes a To Hit roll in assault, which is totally different.

What you have cited are a bunch of tests that involve characteristics, only four of which (I agree with you about Sweeping Advances) are actually characteristic tests.

[Tynskel]

You bring up a valid point.

However, you have not refuted my argument.

Hit n' Run is still tied to the entire unit having to disengage if one model were to pass the test-- all the moving restrictions in the game are based off of one roll for the entire squad. p.75, 11, 12

Ld tests are completely different- and the one time where an individual model makes the test is when a psyker makes their test. p.50

There is nothing that states that when a unit takes a test, only one roll is made.
There is nothing that states that when a special rule applies to a unit, that only one model receives the rule.


However, the one rule that everyone uses, consciously or not, to apply a special rule to every model is on p. 3--- units are made up of a series of models.


Consistency of application:

If aura of fervor applies to every single model, it makes sense that acid blood applies to every single model.

[Nabterayl]

I'm going to quote you out of order because I think it will make my response flow better:

However, the one rule that everyone uses, consciously or not, to apply a special rule to every model is on p. 3--- units are made up of a series of models.
Actually, that's not the rule I use. I do pretty much what you're doing to Hit & Run, only from the opposite end. You're assuming that, even though by default Hit & Run applies to individual models, we must make an exception because the default clearly doesn't work.

What I do is assume that, by default, rules which say "a unit receives this" or "a unit does that" apply to the unit collectively - unless that clearly doesn't work. For example:
Bonus attacks - units don't have an Attack characteristic or anything like an attack characteristic. If we applied bonus attacks to the unit, we'd have no way of knowing what its Strength was, or its Weapon Skill, or Initiative, or if it had any other special rules. So I conclude we must apply this one to the individual models.
Feel No Pain - by its terms applies only to models (and since units do not suffer unsaved wounds, there is no way to apply this to a unit anyway). So if a rule says "the unit receives FNP," I conclude we must apply FNP to the individual models.
Rolling to hit - units are never told to roll to hit, so they don't fall under the case we're discussing in the first place.
And so on. In short, I ask if there is a way to give literal effect to the language as written. If not, I assume the canon of construction (that is, the convention) is to give effect to the language as applied to the individual models, instead.


You bring up a valid point.

However, you have not refuted my argument.

Hit n' Run is still tied to the entire unit having to disengage if one model were to pass the test-- all the moving restrictions in the game are based off of one roll for the entire squad. p.75, 11, 12

Ld tests are completely different- and the one time where an individual model makes the test is when a psyker makes their test. p.50

There is nothing that states that when a unit takes a test, only one roll is made.
There is nothing that states that when a special rule applies to a unit, that only one model receives the rule.
I still think you're missing my point about Leadership tests. The Leadership paragraph on page 8 does not say anything like, "Hey guys, unlike all other characteristic tests, when a unit takes a Leadership test, it makes a single collective Leadership test." What it says is, "Hey guys, unlike all other characteristic tests, when a unit takes a Leadership test, it rolls 2d6."

In any case, would you agree that this is a fair summary of where we are?

What you see is a lot of "things a unit does or can have happen to it" that apply to the individual models.
I say, "But none of those things are characteristic tests! You're comparing apples and oranges!"
You say, "Yes, but it's the closest we've got, so I'm going to assume there's an unwritten rule meaning that 'unit' and 'each model in the unit' are interchangeable."
I say, "But page 3 doesn't say that! Page 3 doesn't require that!"
You say, "Have you got anything better?"
I say, "Yes! For one thing, let's start with the fact that the text says that the unit does this or that, so our starting place should be to assume that the unit does it collectively, until we have good reason to believe otherwise.
You say, "Ah, but we do have good reason to believe otherwise! Look at all these examples of cases where the rule says, "the unit does this or that" and we can see clearly that what the rule must mean is, "the individual models in the unit do this or that!"
I say, "Yes! It's true that many - perhaps most - things a unit does or can have happen to it must apply to the individual models. But everywhere characteristic tests are involved, the unit does it collectively. So we should infer that the characteristic test convention is different!"
You say, "But I can show why each of those examples you're thinking of is a special case, and therefore not indicative of the general rule! We're right back to where we started!"
I say, "But you haven't shown why each of those examples is a special case. The point you're missing is that there is separate language from the language you're focused on deconstructing, demonstrating that in fact these 'special cases' assume I'm right!"
You say, "On the contrary, you're missing the point. <this is about where I stop being sure what you'd say>."

That about where we are?

[Tynskel]

I say, "Yes! It's true that many - perhaps most - things a unit does or can have happen to it must apply to the individual models. But everywhere characteristic tests are involved, the unit does it collectively. So we should infer that the characteristic test convention is different!"


Bwah?

This is not the case--- you cannot name a rule that does this.

I have explained that Hit and Run explicitly says every model disengages.
Leadership tests are drastically different, and the ONLY time it applies to individual models is for Psykers. Also note, the rule EXPLICITLY states roll for the maximum value. The language IMPLIES one roll, just as the language in Hit and Run IMPLIES one roll.

You cannot name characteristic test that is unit wide other than Acid Blood.

Your justifications for a special rule, like +1 attack, applying to every model in the unit is weak--
YOU are concluding--- however, you have no true basis for your result.

+1 attack, like an initiative test, could easily be applied to just one model--- which model, you choose. Just like, who dies when wounded? You choose.



Your result is NOT conclusive based upon the reading of the book. The ONLY justification that you can logically use is the p. 3 Units being comprised of models.

That's it!

And from that justification, I am saying that ALL rules should be applied the same.

Special Rule says 'unit', Applies to all Models.
+1 Attack to all models.
Initiative Test to all models.



I have actually cited where rules like +1 attack SPECIFICALLY state applies to all models: Chapter Banner. "All models in the same unit" (p.53 C:SM, p.52 C:BA)---
However, Inspiring Presence (p.90 C:SM), and Aura of Fervour (p. 51 C:BA) state: friendly units. They SPECIFICALLY do not state models.

You are treating the language between these two as the same--- they are NOT the same.

Why shouldn't Acid Blood get the SAME treatment.

[Tynskel]

The result of this argument is that there is NO justification from the rulebook for Aura of Fervour applies to every model, and NO justification that Acid Blood only rolls one roll.


The ONLY place in the rulebook where we can get an inferred approach IS on p.3 with the definition of a Unit.

[Duke]

My personal ruling is that Sanguinor gives +1 Attack to every model in the unit for the same reasoning that nab has posted...sorry tynskel.

Duke

[Nabterayl]

Tynskel, are you a physicist or a mathematician? You seem to be hung up on different but similar situations having the same convention for the sake of, I dunno, elegance.

Example:


I say, "Yes! It's true that many - perhaps most - things a unit does or can have happen to it must apply to the individual models. But everywhere characteristic tests are involved, the unit does it collectively. So we should infer that the characteristic test convention is different!"


Bwah?

This is not the case--- you cannot name a rule that does this.
I surely can, as long as I'm willing to think like a lawyer instead of like a mathematician. Let's use Aura of Fervour as an example. The unit receives +1A. Very well. That's what the rule tells me to do, but in the larger context of the rules that's a meaningless action. Units do not attack.

As a mathematician, I conclude that Aura of Fervour does nothing - or rather, it does something that has no effect in the game. I will keep in the back of my mind that my unit has +1A, and I'll be sure to bring that up the very first time a rule ever tells me to care about how many attacks my unit has, as opposed to its constituent models. Alas for my Blood Angels, no rule currently in the game cares how many attacks my unit has. But as a mathematician, I don't care if a literal reading of the rule reduces it to uselessness.

As a lawyer, I do care, because I presume that the rule would not have been written if it did not do something. My reading comprehension task then becomes to use what data I have to infer the author's intent and see if I can articulate a canon of construction, or rule of interpretation, that will give the written text the effect it was intended to have - an imprecise business to be sure, but not one that is totally guesswork. In this case, there are two main options - either I give +1A to a single model in the unit, or I give +1A to every model in the unit. In favor of the first option is the fact that GW clearly knows how to be specific, as evidenced by the chapter banner - so, the argument goes, we should infer from their lack of specificity that they intended something different. That is indeed a powerful argument. In favor of the second option is the fact that other characteristic bonuses applied to units are interpreted by GW as applying to individual units. For instance, the ork Mob Rule!, though it says that "Ork mobs may always choose to substitute the number of Orks in their mob for their normal Leadership value," is clearly interpreted by GW as increasing the Leadership of the individual Orks in the mob (c.f. the ork FAQ). Thus we have an example where GW has interpreted parallel language as applying to the constituent models. In the same way that "scatter dice" is plainly singular in GW-speak, here we have evidence that "increase the characteristic of a unit" is "increase the characteristic of each constituent model" in GW-speak.

Faced with those two competing interpretations, as a lawyer, I would go with the second.

So then we come to units taking characteristic tests. Here we can draw a distinction between rules like Aura of Fervour or the Mob Rule!, because no characteristic is being modified, and no special rule is being conferred. Instead, the unit is being told to take an action. There is no general rule telling us how to do that. However, when the rulebook discusses specific instances of the type of action the unit is told to undertake, it assumes that that type of action is undertaken collectively. As a mathematician, this means nothing; a mathematician is happy to say that the answer has no solution. A lawyer is not - a lawyer will attempt to articulate a canon of construction based on the closest available precedent.

In this case, we have two available precedents - the precedent that says "when a unit receives a characteristic bonus, it is received by each individual model," and the precedent that says "when specific instances of units taking characteristic tests are discussed, it is assumed but never stated explicitly (one way or the other) that the unit will do so collectively." Neither is conclusive, of course, but the second is plainly closer to the situation at hand.

[Tynskel]

It is unfortunate, but lawyers sometimes deal in the realm of Bullsh!t--- just look at the supreme court case stating that a corporation is an individual--- did you know we have corporations running for Congressional Office because of this case?

Scientists have to deal with defining terms too--- however, unlike law, if a term is defined poorly, there is little constraint for one's experiment. And we end up with wide range of answers. That is what we have here---Until GW decides to define their terms better.


my god man--- you are talking about Ld tests again--- they are tooooo different from a normal Characteristic test.

You cannot refer to Ld tests. I have explained multiple times over why you can't. However, you keep ignoring my reasons. Your relationship of mob rule applies to Ld Tests!!!! Far from normal characteristic rolls!

Another reason Mob Rule is a HORRIBLE example---- it is not a radius rule or a rule that applies to a unit---- if you read unit entries, this a rule that comes with all Orks. It applies to every ork, because every ork has it.

Just like when a unit COMES with Furious Charge, they all have it, because every model has it in their entry.

Simply- your intent for characteristics is based on BS.

Same with your 'convention' for Aura of Fervour--- especially when you discount specific language from other rules that have the same effect of +1 attack. One says applies to every model in a unit, the other states applies to a unit. But because you cannot come up with the rule, you HAVE to rule...

no.

You are at such a loss for justifications, that you are grasping at straws.
You should look at p. 3 again- that's the only justification. a unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group.

It is not hard to say: unit takes an initiative test
several models have to take an initiative test
unit gains +1 attack
several models gain +1 attack


Not to hard here.

[Tynskel]

My personal ruling is that Sanguinor gives +1 Attack to every model in the unit for the same reasoning that nab has posted...sorry tynskel.

Duke

I am glad you have personal feelings involved in this--- but personal feelings are NOT justifications.

[addamsfamily36]

Forgive me if im wrong, but doesn't acid blood state "intitative test for wounds taken". I.e you take a number of tests dependant on the number of wounds caused. So you wouldn't test the whole unit, but a number of tests equal to the number of wounds?

[Tynskel]

that would be the case if the test said the model that inflicted the wound, however, the rule states the unit. The discussion we are having is whether all models would take the test or not.

I am basing my answer on p. 3. The unit is made up of a several models--- ie, all the models take the test.

There are many other rules that state unit wide gets an ability from a different unit's special ability (aura of fervour)--- these rules do not state all models receive the bonus. However, there are rules that do the same effect, but specifically state all models (chapter banner). Even though there are these examples, everyone treats a rule like aura of fervour effecting all models in the unit.

Since p. 3 is the only justification---- all other justifications are superficial- based on opinion, not rules. You'll read this in our posts, you'll see where nab and I have bantered back n' forth.

What I propose is that Acid Blood states unit without explicitly stating models, and these other rules state unit without explicitly stating models, that they should be treated the same way, and p.3 I am using as my justification- because this is the ONLY rule that can be consistently applied.

[addamsfamily36]

that would be the case if the test said the model that inflicted the wound, however, the rule states the unit. The discussion we are having is whether all models would take the test or not.

I am basing my answer on p. 3. The unit is made up of a several models--- ie, all the models take the test.

There are many other rules that state unit wide gets an ability from a different unit's special ability (aura of fervour)--- these rules do not state all models receive the bonus. However, there are rules that do the same effect, but specifically state all models (chapter banner). Even though there are these examples, everyone treats a rule like aura of fervour effecting all models in the unit.

Since p. 3 is the only justification---- all other justifications are superficial- based on opinion, not rules. You'll read this in our posts, you'll see where nab and I have bantered back n' forth.

What I propose is that Acid Blood states unit without explicitly stating models, and these other rules state unit without explicitly stating models, that they should be treated the same way, and p.3 I am using as my justification- because this is the ONLY rule that can be consistently applied.


Ok so the ruling for acid blood definetly states against the unit? or does it say wounds against the unit that inflicted the wounds against the model with acid blood (i would buy the tyranid codex but im broke, and, before you say dont join in unless i have the book like earlier, i actually agree with you to a certain degree)

i appreciate your argument, people are more than happy to accept a unit wide benifit, but not happy to accept a unit wide attack. (i.e acid blood)

im curious as to the Exact entries for both :

Acid blood

and

if there is a section on it Initiative tests

again i would look them up myself, but am in no position at the moment to get my possesions as im stuck at university for atleast another 2 weeks.

so if someone or yourself could post them i would be grateful as i would like to contribute, as have been reading this thread from the begining.

cheers :)

[Tynskel]

I have quoted the rule acid blood entry at the beginning of the thread.
The Initiative test is under characteristic tests, and the rules only state individual models take the test- that's it. There is no mention of unit as a whole taking tests.

Nab cites Leadership tests, however, 1) these tests only apply to the model with highest Ld, 2) the language is completely different from ALL other characteristic tests, and 3) the test mechanic is completely different. The ONLY exception to this is psykers.

Nab also cites Hit n' Run--- however, hit n' run is tied directly to movement- if one model has to leave the combat, the entire unit must leave. Considering the movement and the initiative are not mutually exclusive, the logical extension is to use the movement rules applied to units on p. 11, and 12.

Acid Blood's initiative test, however, is mutually exclusive of other unit wide rules.

Acid Blood, p. 84 Tyranid Codex: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood suffers in close combat, the enemy UNIT that struck the blow must pass an Initiative test or suffer a wound. No armour saves or cover saves may be taken against these wounds and casualties count towards combat resolution. Walkers instead suffer a glancing hit on the D6 roll of a 4+."

Aura of Fervour, p. 51 Codex Blood Angels: "All friendly UNITS within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack."

Chapter Banner, p.53 C:SM: "Any Space Marine unit within 12" of the Banner Bearer always re-rolls failed Morale and Pinning Tests. In addition, all models in the same UNIT as the Chapter Banner have +1 Attack whilst the banner bearer is alive. While the Banner Bearer is still alive, the Honour Guard counts as scoring one extra wound in close combat for the purposes of calculating the assault result."

I know that you are going to say, it 'says one wound'... but Aura of Fervor says 'one attack'. They are equivalent, their language is the same-- an entire unit is effected by the special abilities. You could replace unit with 'several models' from p. 3. Chapter Banner specifically cites 'models' in the 'unit' receive one attack.

However, people treat the application of these two rules differently--- This is a major issue: unequal application of the same verbal usage of a rule, especially since the rulebook does not state to treat these rules unequally.

The only justification for a rule to be applied to every model (when the special rule does not explicitly state to) in a unit comes from the definition of a unit on p.3, that units are made of several models.

This would be the justification that Aura of Fervor applies to every model.
This would be the justification that Acid Blood applies to every model.

It makes sense that these rules would be applied the same way.

[addamsfamily36]

tynskel, thankyou for reposting all under one post, very helpful:

I agree with you, that its convenient some people will accept a Unit getting +1 attack but not a unit taking an initiative test as a whole.

That being said, i also agree with their point of view to a certain degree. Its obvious/common sense that aura of the sanguinor is meant to be +1 attack for each model in a unit within 6 inches, Otherwise it would be dfficult to decide which modle in the unit gets that +1 attack.

As for Acid blood, an initiative test says individual models take the test. now a unit is made up of a group of models, so you can argue that they are individuals in regards to this test. However (and i know u asked/said dont mention it) but its does say "an initiative test and a wound"

both an, and a, suggest that it is a singular initiative test for each wound unsaved by the model with acid blood.

this makes sense as only models able to inflict wounds should be the only ones able to be hit by acid blood.

However rules as written do leave it open to a never endign debate. either both players play it as +1 attack for one model in the unit, and one test for a single model in the unit for each wound, or you play it +1 attack for everyone and initiative test for everyone, and until FAQ's on both have been released (not that i like depending on FAQ's, it will be the only way to have a definate answer).


I know this hasn't helped, but this is one of the only arguments iv'e seen recently where i believe there can be no eventual end to the debate, as both parties are right, one from rules as written the other from common sense.

[addamsfamily36]

Jus like to mention, i'm a Blood angels player (have been for 12 years) so i should be biased to them, but im not in this case.

[Tynskel]

tynskel, thankyou for reposting all under one post, very helpful:

I agree with you, that its convenient some people will accept a Unit getting +1 attack but not a unit taking an initiative test as a whole.

That being said, i also agree with their point of view to a certain degree. Its obvious/common sense that aura of the sanguinor is meant to be +1 attack for each model in a unit within 6 inches, Otherwise it would be dfficult to decide which modle in the unit gets that +1 attack.

As for Acid blood, an initiative test says individual models take the test. now a unit is made up of a group of models, so you can argue that they are individuals in regards to this test. However (and i know u asked/said dont mention it) but its does say "an initiative test and a wound"

both an, and a, suggest that it is a singular initiative test for each wound unsaved by the model with acid blood.

this makes sense as only models able to inflict wounds should be the only ones able to be hit by acid blood.

However rules as written do leave it open to a never endign debate. either both players play it as +1 attack for one model in the unit, and one test for a single model in the unit for each wound, or you play it +1 attack for everyone and initiative test for everyone, and until FAQ's on both have been released (not that i like depending on FAQ's, it will be the only way to have a definate answer).


I know this hasn't helped, but this is one of the only arguments iv'e seen recently where i believe there can be no eventual end to the debate, as both parties are right, one from rules as written the other from common sense.


You got the gist of my argument.

The rules are too open ended in this section to make a clear ruling.

I, for one, are for consistent application of rules, and I'll do one (one model takes the test/gets the bonus) or the other (all models take the test/get the bonus). To me, that is the 'common sense' answer-- it is the most fair application. Note, common sense usually means that all parties either a) benefit, or b) do not benefit.


I play Blood Angels (Space Marines as well) and Tyranids--- been playing them since I played Space Hulk in 1994--- so I am 'biased'. Note, I am being consistent- I am either screwing myself and helping myself.

[Nabterayl]

It is unfortunate, but lawyers sometimes deal in the realm of Bullsh!t--- just look at the supreme court case stating that a corporation is an individual--- did you know we have corporations running for Congressional Office because of this case?
Corporations have been individuals for, like, the past 400 years. Sorry if that's news to you. I take it that means you aren't a lawyer. I'll trade you some professional respect - I won't denigrate the professional skills of a scientist until I'm at least several years beyond my PhD in one of the hard sciences.


my god man--- you are talking about Ld tests again--- they are tooooo different from a normal Characteristic test.

You cannot refer to Ld tests. I have explained multiple times over why you can't. However, you keep ignoring my reasons.
And I keep asking for citations, which you refuse to provide. You contend that Leadership tests are explicitly defined as being taken by units collectively. I'll grant you that, for the sake of argument. You then contend that this contrasts with how other characteristic tests are defined. I've asked for you to cite that. You keep going back to page 3. I've asked for you to present a proof demonstrating the logical equivalence of a unit and its constituent models. You haven't provided one.

[Tynskel]

Everything about the mechanics of the Leadership test is different than the Characteristic Test. It says it all on p.8-- the rule specifically states to use highest value for a unit-- does it say this for other characteristic tests- no it does not. No other characteristic test states to do this. You have even pointed out this in your examples. Do other tests use 2d6? No, they do not.
This is why you cannot equate them with other characteristic tests.
Apples and Oranges are Fruit, just as Ld and other str are characteristics. However, Apples and Oranges are separated by genus due to major differences in how they are built/operate. This is the same for Leadership and the other characteristics--str and initiative have more in common than they do with the Leadership category, and you cannot apply leadership rules to the rest of the characteristics.

I do not understand what it is you want me to cite. I could quote the whole thing, but what's the point? We end up at the same problem: Special rules from one unit being applied to another unit. There is no written convention how these rules are applied.

I have suggested that they should be applied the same way- to each model in a unit.
p. 3 is what I keep citing, because this is the only place in the entire rulebook that describes what a unit is. They are made up of a series of models. Characteristic Tests are made by models only, the two exceptions are Ld, and the Hit n' Run rule--- both of which have a series of rules that directly put them into a specifically defined category.

[Nabterayl]

Everything about the mechanics of the Leadership test is different than the Characteristic Test. It says it all on p.8-- the rule specifically states to use highest value for a unit-- does it say this for other characteristic tests- no it does not. No other characteristic test states to do this. You have even pointed out this in your examples. Do other tests use 2d6? No, they do not.
This is why you cannot equate them with other characteristic tests.
Apples and Oranges are Fruit, just as Ld and other str are characteristics. However, Apples and Oranges are separated by genus due to major differences in how they are built/operate. This is the same for Leadership and the other characteristics--str and initiative have more in common than they do with the Leadership category, and you cannot apply leadership rules to the rest of the characteristics.

I do not understand what it is you want me to cite. I could quote the whole thing, but what's the point? We end up at the same problem: Special rules from one unit being applied to another unit. There is no written convention how these rules are applied.

I have suggested that they should be applied the same way- to each model in a unit.
p. 3 is what I keep citing, because this is the only place in the entire rulebook that describes what a unit is. They are made up of a series of models. Characteristic Tests are made by models only, the two exceptions are Ld, and the Hit n' Run rule--- both of which have a series of rules that directly put them into a specifically defined category.
What I've been looking for you to cite is something that will demonstrate that Leadership tests are so different from other characteristic tests that things that are not even characteristic tests are a closer analogy. It sounds from the above like you don't actually think that is the case.

I agree that a Leadership test is to an Initiative test as an apple is to an orange. However, an Initiative test is to a narthecium as an orange is to a cucumber. (This is, in case I haven't made it clear already, the reason I am untroubled by the "inconsistency" inherent in giving different conventions to characteristic tests and non-characteristic tests. I do not see it as an inconsistency if fruit and vegetables have different rules.)

I agree it is unfortunate that we don't have more "normal" characteristic tests to work from, but that is the state of our evidence. The way I see it, at least Leadership and Initiative tests are both tests. Rules and wargear that confer abilities or characteristic bonuses aren't even characteristic tests, let alone "normal" characteristic tests. So we have two choices. We can:
Analogize normal characteristic tests to weird characteristic tests, or
Analogize normal characteristic tests to things that are not characteristic tests.
Neither choice is desirable, but since those are the only two choices we have, I'll take the first.

[Tynskel]

What I've been looking for you to cite is something that will demonstrate that Leadership tests are so different from other characteristic tests that things that are not even characteristic tests are a closer analogy. It sounds from the above like you don't actually think that is the case.

I agree that a Leadership test is to an Initiative test as an apple is to an orange. However, an Initiative test is to a narthecium as an orange is to a cucumber. (This is, in case I haven't made it clear already, the reason I am untroubled by the "inconsistency" inherent in giving different conventions to characteristic tests and non-characteristic tests. I do not see it as an inconsistency if fruit and vegetables have different rules.)

I agree it is unfortunate that we don't have more "normal" characteristic tests to work from, but that is the state of our evidence. The way I see it, at least Leadership and Initiative tests are both tests. Rules and wargear that confer abilities or characteristic bonuses aren't even characteristic tests, let alone "normal" characteristic tests. So we have two choices. We can:
Analogize normal characteristic tests to weird characteristic tests, or
Analogize normal characteristic tests to things that are not characteristic tests.
Neither choice is desirable, but since those are the only two choices we have, I'll take the first.




ooohh oooooohhh

No, I think Ld test are radically different. You misunderstood the analogy for apples and oranges. Apples and Oranges are Fruit. However, Apples are a in the rose family, and Oranges are in the citrus genus. You have to go alllllll the way back to the plant kingdom/phylum to find where they link together. Which you would find vegetables are related to apples and oranges.

The book defines Ld ship different from all other characteristic tests. You cannot simply just lump them together.

You are trying to lump rules that are specifically defined with rules that are not specifically defined. That is not the correct relationship. The Specific details of one special rule does not apply to a general special rule. You have a meter stick and a centimeter stick. One measurement needed is a 100m the other is a 9 decimeters. You would NOT use the centimeter stick to measure the 100 m, the order of magnitude is 10^4. You would apply the cm to the dm- 10^1. You cannot apply the Meter stick to the 9 dm because the dm are smaller- your answer would be 1 or 0.

This is not A=B=C. This is A is a B, C is an A, but B is not a C. There is an order.

Another example: Tank Shock and Ramming. Ramming is a specific rule of Tank Shock--- So, when I tank shock you, does that mean I am ramming? No. There is an order of operations.

You lump general rules with general rules. Acid Blood, Aura of Fervour and Blood Chalice are general in application. Chapter Banner, Leadership Tests, are narrow in application. In the narrow application, you follow the stipulations that the rule has defined. For the general application, you apply the general rules. p.3 is a general definition of a unit, made up of a several models.

p. 3 is where the general rule for Aura of Fervour gains a justification to be applied to all models in a unit. Chapter Banner applies to all models in a unit, but does not pass this rule upward to a general rule.

I am not applying Acid Blood to Aura of Fervour. I know they are two different categories. What I am doing is applying an order of operations. Acid Blood and Aura of Fervour just so happen to follow the same order of operations.

[Nabterayl]

So in other words, you really would rather analogize normal characteristic tests to things that are not characteristic tests, so long as both sides of the analogy apply to units rather than models (or vice versa - the general with the general, and the specific with the specific). For you, the relevant analogy is not what the rule is telling you to do, but who it is telling you to do it to. Am I getting that right?

If so, that's fair enough. I don't agree with that intuition, but I can respect it.

[Tynskel]

Essentially.

I am using the rulebook paradigm. General rules have an order of operations, and follow these order of operations unless there is a specific order of operations.

[HellCrusader]

The sanguinor's blessing is a characteristic modification
The Acid Blood exemple is a characteristic test
IMO the 2 arent really comparable

[Tynskel]

It isn't that they are comparable or not:
it is that they both use the same operational language.
The rulebook is based upon a logic flow pattern-- When X happens do A, When Y happens do B, When Z happens do C, ect ect.

Aura of Fervour effects all units in range, Acid Blood effects the unit that struck the blow.
The only portion of the rulebook that defines units is on p.3- units are made up of several models.

The same order of operations applies:
Unit receives +1 attack (singular)- p. 3 unit made of several models, all models receive the attack.
Unit receives an initiative test (singular)- p. 3 unit made of several models, all models receive the initiative test.


The aura of fervour does not state that every individual model gains +1 attack, and could very well mean only 1 singular attack. --- there are many special rules, however, that explicitly state that all models receive +1 Attack (ex. Chapter Banner, Counter Attack). But, aura of fervour and many many others do not explicitly state this (Blood Chalice, Inspiring Presence, ect)- one can not use 'chapter banner' as the convention.

Acid blood does not state that every individual model takes an initiative test--- all other initiative test abilities explicitly state individual models. (Exception is Hit n' Run, but this special rule is not just an initiative test: the result is depends on the entire unit disengaging not individual models disengaging-hence one test).

Both cases default to p. 3 definition of a unit. There are no precedents in the rulebook or codex that state otherwise.