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

I am planning on running a Grey Knight Nemesis Strike Force with an Inquisitorial detachment as allies.

Can an IC like a Malleus Inquisitor (with Terminator Armor so he can DS) join a Squad of GK Terminators for deep striking on turn one?

Also, if I equip the Inquisitor with psybolt ammunition, would he confer this onto the squad he joins? EDIT: Answered!!

Thanks a lot in advance!

Also, if I equip the Inquisitor with psybolt ammunition, would he confer this onto the squad he joins?

No, because it would be the upgrade for himself.

"A model equipped with psybolt ammunition..."

Thank you! Though I should have figured that one out myself...

 Gabryel wrote:
Thank you! Though I should have figured that one out myself...

Wish it was true lol

Any thoughts on my other question? Is this possible or not?

I'd say no as he is not part of the detachment, therefore doesnt gain the special rule

Your first question was discussed in this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/612929.page

No 100% consensus was reached after 5 pages, so I suggest reviewing the arguments and discussing it with your group.

Aha! Thank you, will dig my way through that.

He doesn't need to be part of the detachment, RAW, as the rule is given to the unit, and the IC is a normal member of the unit.

Some people will waffle on about swapping detachment, but this isn't the argument, and isn't needed for this to work.

detachment rules are given to the units in the detachment prior to deployment.

the IC is not a member of the unit when it gains the rule.

some people will waffle on about how the IC is part of the detachment when it is in the unit, but this is after the rule is granted, and the IC is still not part of the detachment even then.

The IC obviously was not purchased as a Unit in that detachments FoC, and doesn't gain that detachments required faction.

You can have units that are made up of models from two or more detachments, with no model belonging to one detachment, but the entire unit is not solely from one singular detachment at that point.

for example- Ghazkull thrakka from an Ork horde Detachment LoW slot joins unit of boyz from Ork warband formation, they are one unit and he counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not count as a member of their detachment, nor a unit from their detachment. The unit has models from both detachments, that were separately given special rules from their own detachments before the game begins. In this example the unit is the same faction, wherein in the example of the NSF GK detachment, the IC attached is most likely not of the GK faction which is also required of units in that detachment on top of actually being purchased from that detachment, which the IC is clearly neither of those things.

the section on ICs has a ruling on how ICs joined to units with different special rules interact with that unit, the special rule has to explicitly state it extends to the whole unit if one model has it as per stealth/shrouded/stubborn

The reason why some people are siding with Detachment special rules conferring to attached ICs, and vis versa, has to do with how the current 7th Ed system lacks restrictive language while promoting inclusive language in a permissive rule set. As a permissive rule set, you are only able to do what you have been given permission to do. 7th Ed is missing entire sections of rules that use to exist in previous edition, yet still refers to those missing rules through implied consent rather than overt permission.

An example of this is the Reserves rule that combined units roll once for reserves. The implied permission is the a unit with an attached IC in a vehicle in Reserves would only roll one die for the entire combined unit to determine if the combined unit deploys together from Reserves on any given turn. Normally, Reserves rolls begin on turn 2, however, Rite of Teleportation allows a unit with this rule that is in Deep Strike Reserved to roll for deployment on turn 1 instead of turn 2. So, does the unit with Rites and an attached IC without Rites in a Deep Striking vehicle without Rites roll for deployment on turn 1 or turn 2?

Due to the lack of supporting language, permission has been given for the Rites unit to roll on turn 1, and permission has been given for the IC, unit, and vehicle to arrive together on a single die roll. Yet, language is lacking on how non-Detachment models interact with Detachment specific models other than the IC's "is a member of the unit for all rules purposes" clause. If the IC counts as a member of the unit, and the unit has a Detachment rule that allows the unit a specific ability, there is no language in the rules to prevent conference to the IC (or vis versa). Such language does exist for USRs, but no such language exists outside of USRs, and Detachment rules are not USRs.

This means that one of three paths can be taken to resolve this conflict:

1 - Detachment Rules are lost unless specific permission is given. This means that ObSec is lost if a non-CAD IC joins a CAD Troop unit. Fortunately, we known this option is incorrect.

2 - Detachment Rules are not conferred without specific permission. This means that Drop Pod Assault will not confer to a Battle Brothers unit embarked on a Drop Pod. Fortunately, we know this option is incorrect, as well.

3 - Detachment Rules are conferred per the IC rules. This means that non-NSF ICs with Deep Strike attached to a Deep Striking NSF units will benefit from Rite of Teleportation. This option appears to be supported within the poorly written RAW of the BRB, and is not overtly overruled by a more specific rule elsewhere.

And that is the reason why people believe that rules such as Rites do confer to non-Detachment models (and vis versa). There are no rules that remove Detachment benefits when combining mixed Detachment units.

SJ

except the IC does not have the detachment benefit because it is not part of the unit when it is given.

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

from the rulebook, under detachments




also your examples are terrible, and here is why.

1- no one has stated rules are lost. If you join an IC to a unit where the IC does not have ob secured, and the unit does you have 1 model in the unit that does not have the special rule. Objective secured specifies a unit with this special rule. The unit now contains models that have the special rule and do not. NSF specifies units from this detachment. An attached IC will not have Rites of teleportation, and is not a unit from that detachment even when joined to a unit from that detachment, it is still a unit chosen from its own detachment. Claiming it is a unit from that detachment when joined means you are claiming it has changed detachments, as well as factions, as it was not purchased from the FoC of the NSF detachment, and is not faction greyknights which are required for units from that detachment. No rule lets the IC count as a member of that detachment, even if it is a member of the unit. Further as the special rule 'rites of teleportation' was granted before deployment, the IC does not have it listed on its roster, and there is no way to confer the special rule after prior to deployment.

2- Drop pod assault is a special rule of a vehicle not a detachment special rule, ICs cannot join vehicle units and the units embarked in them are not joined by the units in them. Furthermore the rule for drop pod assault says it affects embarked units. Not embarked units from this detachment.

3- You are just plain completely wrong on this. Detachment rules are given before deployment as per the raw for detachment rules, the IC that is not part of the detachment does not have the special rules/bonuses from being in a detachment they are not in added to their roster at this point. There is no other point of conferring bonuses/special rules from detachments. now if the special rule/bonus calls out specifically that it affects all models in a unit if at least one model has it e.g. stubborn/shrouded then it will as per the rules for ICs joining a unit that has special rules it does not. There is nothing at all in the IC rules that shows you gain detachment rules from another detachment.

ignorance of the rules does not make a incorrect false rule valid.

So you would claim the unit loses the rule? Page and graph. Otherwise the unit does have the rule, and the unit can use it.

considering I stated the unit didn't lose it,

1- no one has stated rules are lost. If yo...

and nothing in my example states they didn't lose it I fail to see how you think I stated that. In fact no idea why you are bringing it up.

the unit from that detachment has a special rule given to them for being in that detachment before deployment.

an IC from not that detachment does not have that rule given to it before deployment.

You join the two together, in this case the special rule does not specifically state it confers to the whole unit if at least one model does e.g. stubborn/shrouded which is required by the RAW of the rulebook under ICs and special rules when joining a unit.

You now have a unit that has a model that does not have a special rule the rest have, in this case the special rule does not specifically state it extends to the 'unit' but the 'unit from that detachment' which the IC is not included in as per the RAW.

so how are you deepstriking a unit turn 1 with an IC that may or may not have deepstrike but does not have the ability to deep strike turn 1?

There is a difference in stating a rule extends to the unit, and a rule extends to a unit from that detachment. They both have different exact meanings, which is why one is used and not the other.

If I take an terminator squad[deep strike] and attach a chapter master[nothing that gives deepstrike purchased] can the terminator squad still deep strike?

The CM may be part of the unit but the CM does not have the deep strike rule and the deep strike rule itself does not specify it confers to the whole unit if 1 model has it.

post a page and para that states the IC attached counts as a unit from that detachment, not just a member of the unit, or concede.

Wait, so the unit isn't from that detachment? That's odd, the IC rules expressly disallow you to treat the IC differently

raw 1) the unit is from the detachment 2) the unit from that detachment can use that rule 3) joining the IC doesn't stop the unit from being from the detachment, as he is a normal member for ALL rules purposes so 4) the unit, still from the detachment, can use the rule

Proven. Mark your posts accordingly.

and now your a troll again. good job not supporting your statement in any way as usual and cherry picking.

edit

not that you deserve a response in any form at this point..

the IC rules allow you to count as a member of a unit joined, not a member of a unit joined from a certain detachment.

At no point do the IC rules allow you to count as an unit, or member of a unit from a different detachment. The IC is still from its own detachment, with its own detachment benefits/restrictions/faction even if the member of a unit from a different detachment.

if rites of teleportation stated any unit with this special rule, or a unit that contains a model with this special rule, you would have a point in that the IC is a member of that unit, but it states specifically "units from this detachment.." which the IC never becomes.

So the unit isn't from the detachment any longer? That means, for a rules purpose, you are treating the IC not as a normal member of the unit. Interesting.

A unit is a single entity (containing 1 to x models). The detachment rules are given to a unit (not the individual models).

An IC can join a unit, becoming part of that unit for all rules purposes.

The unit (with IC in tow) may still use the detachment special rule given to it since the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.

So far this is my understanding. Can you show me where I'm wrong blaktoof?

No, and they never can. They'll just again. Claim that we are somehow claiming that the IC swaps detachment, or something else strawman like.

Zimko wrote:
A unit is a single entity (containing 1 to x models). The detachment rules are given to a unit (not the individual models).

An IC can join a unit, becoming part of that unit for all rules purposes.

The unit (with IC in tow) may still use the detachment special rule given to it since the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.

So far this is my understanding. Can you show me where I'm wrong blaktoof?

I have already posted all of this, along with the actual rules showing how this is not permitted and in many instances of what people have stated, yourself included in the above, are incorrect on.

here is some of it restated for you incase you did not read the above posts in this 1 page thread. Rules will be quoted verbatim and quote boxes.

Firstly an IC can join a unit, becoming a part of that unit for all rules purposes.

This means many things, but does not mean it gains special rules the unit had. It can count as a member of the unit for certain special rules which effect an entire unit if one model has them, e.g. stubborn. Many people mistakenly claim you an IC gets the special rules of a unit it joins, and the unit gets the ICs special rules, this is blatantly 100% wrong.

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

So now we know that characters can join units and even though the character is a member of the unit the units special rules are NOT conferred on the character and vice versa. The rule has to specify in the rule itself, that it extends to the other models in the unit. Let us look at the example rule they give, stubborn.

Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

notice the underline how it specifies that it extends to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule, which is required to be stated as per the section on special rules and independent characters as listed under the independent character rules.

Now we know how special rules and ICs work, lets look at how anything gains bonuses/special rules from detachments/formations.

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

So we get these bonuses in battle forged armies for being in the FoC of the specific detachment the bonuses go to and no selection in a single detachment/formation may be part of another detachment. These special rules and bonuses are given to the detachments BEFORE deployment. At this point in the game it is not possible by any rule to join an IC to a unit, as that does not happen until deployment. So what happens is you give detachment bonuses/special rules before deployment, and then at deployment you join things together. There is no rule anywhere that allows you to give detachment bonuses/special rules to members of a detachment after that point.

The issue with rites of teleportion is simple.

1- The IC never has the actual special rule, the members of the unit from the NSF detachment do have it, the special rule in question was given to them before deployment. The IC could not join them then, and there is no RAW way to grant the bonus special rule to the unit after that point.
2- You have a unit from detachment NSF that has sepcial rule RoT from before deployment, and want to attach a unit from CAD that does not have the special rule, refer to above on ICs joining units with different special rules. The special rule in question in no way uses the language found in stubborn or similar rules that it extends to the entire unit if one model has it.
3- The Special rule 'rites of teleportation'

Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one.

doesn't state any unit with this special rule, or unit with a model with this special rule but instead states any unit in this detachment.

The NSF detachment is laid out in your army roster, it requires faction GK 1HQ, 1 Troops, and has optional 1 HQ, 3 Troops, 4 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy support, 1 LoW, and 1 Fortification. You have already note in your roster which units are from that detachment. Nothing changes that during the game because "no unit may belong to more than 1 detachment"

The IC you are attaching belongs to a detachment other than the NSF detachment in this case. The unit is not a Unit from detachment NSF at that point as not all models in it are from that detachment. There is no rule anywhere that explicitly states you may count as a member of another detachment for any reason at any certain time. Which is what is required at this point for the special rule to work the way you want it to because there is the very specific rule

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment

The IC may be a member of the unit, but it is certainly not a member of the NSF detachment, the wording "unit in this detachment" is very clear, and its quite obvious on your army roster which detachment things are from.

If you claim the IC has changed detachments or counts as a member of another detachment in any way other than their own you have broken the RAW.

The IC never has a way to join the unit during the time the detachment bonus/special rule is given to the unit
The IC never has a way to count as a member of a unit from the NSF detachment.


No one has been able to find any RAW that states explicitly that an IC can count as a member of a different detachment to be "a unit from this detachment" because there is none, because it is not allowed. This is the only line that really needs to be stated, because without permission to belong to more than one detachment, or count as belonging to the NSF detachment the IC not from that detachment is never in any way under any circumstance a unit in the NSF detachment.

Blaktoof,
Personally, I despise this Rule for a great deal of reasons but I do have to defend it in this case... it is the wording within the Rites of Teleportation which is in error.

The Independent Character Special Rule uses the word Count As because the Model in question is not Y and as such would not have access to Rules designed for Y. By having a Count As clause, we are instructed that X counts as Y within the situations laid out within the Count As clause itself. In this case, and to my great displeasure, those situations are 'all Rule purposes...' so it would be a violation of Rule as Written to Count the model as anything other then Y whenever a Rule interacts with it. It doesn't become Y in these situations, it is still X, but the Rules simply treat it as Y

So, even putting aside the fact that the Independent Character does not change Detachments there is the following to ponder:
Are the Rules telling us how to determine what Detachment X belongs to not.... Rules?

simply put.

The IC never is awarded the special rule as it is given to the relevant units in the NSF detachment prior to deployment, a time you cannot place the IC in the unit.

the rule specifies "units in this detachment may"

at what point and with what quoted RAW is an Unit from a combined armes detachment ever considered a unit from a NSF detachment?

Page and para that allows the above specifically.

there is none, but good luck.

if the thing being falsely proposed were true what would happen would be if the unit counts as a unit of the other detachment you would be breaking the RAW that units cannot belong to more than one detachment, in many cases you would also at that point have an illegal army if you claimed it was battle forged as the IC attached is not GK faction which is required to be a unit from that detachment. Additionally there is a good chance one of your detachments no longer has the minimum required HQ slots from units in that detachment, and the NSF detachment very well might have 3 IC units, which is obviously wrong.

at no point does an unit in detachment x count as a unit in detachment Y.

As the rules for RoT state "units in this detachment" it will not work.

claiming the wording in RoT is in error is not really a RAW argument.

The problem is not determining which Detachment the Model belongs to, it is determining which Unit the Model belongs to.

The Rites should of been far better written, as it never should have targeted the unit as a whole! The argument your opponent has made do not involved changing Detachments or finding a way to apply this Rule to the Model itself, it simply involves pointing out the target of the Command Benefit is a Unit that has been chosen from the Detachment, and that it is still being applied to a Unit that was selected from the Detachment. It doesn't matter what Detachment the Independent Character originally belongs to, as the Rule will treat them as being part of the target Unit for the purpose of this Rule. As we are required by the Rules to treat the Independent Character as a Model within the Unit, we lack the ability to separate the the Joined Unit into two separate Units for the purpose of determining which Models benefit from a Unit-wide Command Benefit.

stating the unit is chosen from the detachment is accurate only until you attach an IC not chosen from the detachment to it.

the unit is no longer chosen from the detachment solely and there is no RAW that actually supports that if an IC is joined to another unit from another detachment that the unit counts solely as from that detachment, and the IC no longer counts as from its detachment.

As such the Unit is made up of models from more than one detachment, and more than one detachment is not "units from this" NSF detachment.

There is no actual rule anywhere that an unit made up of models from more than one detachment is a unit from only x detachment.

Problem:
Joining Rules are clear that the Character becomes part of the existing Unit.

There are other problems with your interpenetration, but before I continue I will simply ask:
What Rules inform us how to determine which Detachment this new 'Joined Unit' belongs to?

The models are joined together as a unit, however RAW the unit is now made up of models from more than 1 detachment.

there is no single detachment they are from, RAW.

joining rules are clear the character becomes part of the unit.

however as many people incorrectly stated, the IC does not have the special rule conferred to it.

the special rule in question does not fall under a special rule that would benefit the unit as a whole, as it requires the whole unit to be a unit from the NSF detachment.

the special rule does not therefore confer to an IC outside of the NSF detachment.

The unit is no longer "from this detachment" the nsf detachment as it includes a unit from outside of the detachment. If i had to point to the two unit entries on a force roster that make up the unit on the table one obviously is a unit from the nsf detachment, the other is obviously a unit from not the nsf detachment but another detachment.


are the they in the same unit? yes.

are the models in the unit all of same detachment? no.

is that unit from this detachment, this being an NSF detachment. no.

I find the terms you are using "your interpretation" to be quite rude as it is incorrect and I am merely stating the RAW and pointing out that "yourside" has 0 RAW to back up that the unit is indeded a "unit from this detachment' the nsf detachment when clearly it is not. It may have models from that detachment, but it is no longer a unit from that detachment, it is now a unit with models from the nsf detachment+a model from that other detachment.

can you quote some RAW anywhere that a IC joined to a unit counts as a member of that units detachment?

blaktoof wrote:
The models are joined together as a unit, however RAW the unit is now made up of models from more than 1 detachment.

there is no single detachment they are from, RAW.

But .. didn't you quote the rules stating the following?

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment

If so, how can it be from more than 1 detachment? Your argument makes no sense at this point.

joining rules are clear the character becomes part of the unit.

however as many people incorrectly stated, the IC does not have the special rule conferred to it.

the special rule in question does not fall under a special rule that would benefit the unit as a whole, as it requires the whole unit to be a unit from the NSF detachment.

.. which is a unit, that has the command benefit being discussed, of which the IC is a member of for all rules purposes.

the special rule does not therefore confer to an IC outside of the NSF detachment.

Nobody is trying to confer it to an IC outside of the detachment, but to the unit, which already has it.

[quote[The unit is no longer "from this detachment" the nsf detachment as it includes a unit from outside of the detachment
[/quote[

And you have rules showing us that we can take a unit and have it change detachments? Or suddenly become from multiple/no detachment, despite the rule quoted above?

If i had to point to the two unit entries on a force roster that make up the unit on the table one obviously is a unit from the nsf detachment, the other is obviously a unit from not the nsf detachment but another detachment.

Incorrect. It is a unit from the NSF detachment with an attached IC from another detachment, who, per the IC rules, is now a member of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own, so your claiming people wanting to make the IC a unit from the NSF detachment is false as well. Once joined to a unit, the IC is a member of the unit and ceases to be its own unit until it leaves the unit. The IC is still from its original detachment, but the rule specifies UNIT, not model, so this is irrelevant.

are the they in the same unit? yes.

are the models in the unit all of same detachment? no.

is that unit from this detachment, this being an NSF detachment. no.

False. It is still a unit from the NSF detachment. You have no rules permission to change that.

can you quote some RAW anywhere that a IC joined to a unit counts as a member of that units detachment?

No, and quite Irrelevant. The IC, joined to a unit (from the NSF detachment) is a member of the unit (from the NSF detachment).

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment

deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.

Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.

as such the remainder of your post is invalid as it is based solely on the premise that the above rule continues to function outside of selecting your force roster.

blaktoof wrote:

However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment

deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.

Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.

How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.

as such the remainder of your post is invalid as it is based solely on the premise that the above rule continues to function outside of selecting your force roster.

So you continue to insist that a GK unit in an NSF detachment is no longer such once an IC from another attachment is joined? You have rules to tell us what it becomes then, correct?

All of your posts on this matter have been based solely on this incorrect premise, and so are invalid (see, two can play the [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]).

As above

Blaktoofs concept is flawed, as it tries to state that somehow the unit I'd from two detachments. Or none. It isn't clear. But of course, that breaks the incredibly all encompassing rule stating that, FORALL RULES PURPOSES he is a normal member of that unit

Detachment is a rules purpose. This is utterly undeniable. Well, to rational posters it is.

Blaktoofs stance relies upon breaking a rule, breaking another rule (units may only belong to one detachment), and just ends up as a complete mess.

Or, you follow the utterly clear and obvious real rules.