Im going to try and make this as simple as possible:

-IC Joins the Devastator unit before deployment

-Drop Pod Comes down Devastators come out

-Thanks to "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule the Devastators get the Relentless Special Rule on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike

Now we look at what it says under Independent Characters and Special Rules:

SPECIAL RULES under the Independent Character Section of the Rulebook page 166:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special Rules are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."

So because it is not specified in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule that an Independent Character would benefit from it he cannot use it, which means he cannot use the Relentless Special Rule because he is not able to use the First the Fire then the Blade Special Rule.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Because i repeat: "the Special Rules entry under Independent Characters" is not at all relevant.
It is only relevant when an IC joins a Unit with a Special Rule.
Does the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts, Yes or No?

Yes they start the game with the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule because they are part of the Formation that comes with it. It is what gives the Devastators Relentless.

 Frozocrone wrote:
So let me get this straight:

Pro IC charge/relentless = IC counts as unit for all rules purposes.

Con IC charge/relentless = Special rules do not confer upon the IC from the unit and vice versa.

Is this the two arguments made? I'm tempted to just roll off for it if there is a disagreement in game.

That would be the argument yes. Except it's not really because Glameron is confusing Confer for Benefit and then using the words interchangeably. He also keeps mixing up Units and Models, but doesn't seem to think the distinction is very important.

Lance845 wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
So let me get this straight:
Pro IC charge/relentless = IC counts as unit for all rules purposes.
Con IC charge/relentless = Special rules do not confer upon the IC from the unit and vice versa.
Is this the two arguments made? I'm tempted to just roll off for it if there is a disagreement in game.

That would be the argument yes. Except it's not really because Glameron is confusing Confer for Benefit and then using the words interchangeably. He also keeps mixing up Units and Models, but doesn't seem to think the distinction is very important.

Have to excuse Lancer, he is exaggerating things because he is upset that I am disagreeing with him and as you can see acting immaturely about it. He feels that attacking my character will win him the argument even though he has admitted to not even having the rules in front of him several times and feels compelled to make things up to try and make himself look like he is in the right.

However that is the basis of the argument, a friendly debate turned sour by the poor attitude of one who disagrees with me.

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:
[

So by this logic if I run a harlequin masque and join a shadowseer to a squad of banshees they can all charge after running. Interesting. I bet there are a tons of ways this interpretation could be abused.

You would have to quote me the relevant rules. I don't play Harlequin. I would be happy to read them though.

Sure,

"Rising Crescendo: From the start of the second turn, all units in this detachment that have the Fleet special rule can Run and Charge in the same turn."

This

 gmaleron wrote:


-Thanks to "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule the Devastators get the Relentless Special Rule on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike

Is not what that rule does.

It gives relentless to the unit. Not the devastators.

Lance845 wrote:
This

 gmaleron wrote:

-Thanks to "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule the Devastators get the Relentless Special Rule on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike

Is not what that rule does.
It gives relentless to the unit. Not the devastators.

*Its

And yes it is, that is RAW from the Rules themselves, but nah they have to be wrong to satisfy you right?

Trystis wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:
[

So by this logic if I run a harlequin masque and join a shadowseer to a squad of banshees they can all charge after running. Interesting. I bet there are a tons of ways this interpretation could be abused.

You would have to quote me the relevant rules. I don't play Harlequin. I would be happy to read them though.

Sure,

"Rising Crescendo: From the start of the second turn, all units in this detachment that have the Fleet special rule can Run and Charge in the same turn."

So if you have a IC that has fleet, and you add him to a unit from the detachment then the IC, while in that unit can run and charge on the same turn.

 gmaleron wrote:
Im going to try and make this as simple as possible:

-IC Joins the Devastator unit before deployment

-Drop Pod Comes down Devastators come out

-Thanks to "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule the Devastators Unit get the Relentless Special Rule on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike

Now we look at what it says under Independent Characters and Special Rules:

SPECIAL RULES under the Independent Character Section of the Rulebook page 166:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special Rules are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."

So because it is not specified in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule that an Independent Character would benefit from it he cannot use it, which means he cannot use the Relentless Special Rule because he is not able to use the First the Fire then the Blade Special Rule.

See above where you are making a mistake.

Asmodai has a good example for you: Command Squad Apothecary has an Item (it could have been a Special Rule) that give FNP to his Unit. The IC cannot benefit?

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Because i repeat: "the Special Rules entry under Independent Characters" is not at all relevant.
It is only relevant when an IC joins a Unit with a Special Rule.
Does the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts, Yes or No?

Yes they start the game with the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule because they are part of the Formation that comes with it. It is what gives the Devastators Relentless.

Ah, so you are asserting that before they start the Game, the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule listed in their profile? gotcha.

I'm sorry but that is a clear mistake. The RaW tell you when they get Relentless, and not before:
"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve"

Please follow the Rules.

 gmaleron wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
This

 gmaleron wrote:

-Thanks to "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule the Devastators get the Relentless Special Rule on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike

Is not what that rule does.
It gives relentless to the unit. Not the devastators.

*Its

And yes it is, that is RAW from the Rules themselves, but nah they have to be wrong to satisfy you right?

This

Is RAW. Devastators is not the name of anything. Maybe a model? Devastator Squad however is the name of a unit. The unit gains the special rule "Relentless" WHEN THEY ARRIVE. That means every model in the unit gains it when they arrive.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Ah, so you are asserting that before they start the Game, the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule listed in their profile? gotcha.
I'm sorry but that is a clear mistake. The RaW tell you when they get Relentless, and not before:
"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve"
Please follow the Rules.

That is not what I said at all, I said they come with "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule before the game start, stop making stuff up.

Lance845 wrote:

Jesus man you are a joke! I wrote the entire thing out earlier and was explaining a specific portion of that in that quote to Blacktalos, you really are desperate to try and prove me wrong aren't you? The fact you are going through my posts to try and make me look bad is proof! Really, so a Devastator Squad is not long a Devastator Squad? Seriously can you hear yourself? My IQ is dropping... You are REALLY being technical dude, im just getting to the point and you want everything word for word, might need to chill out a bit your getting way to worked up over this.

 gmaleron wrote:
That is not what I said at all, I said they come with "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule before the game start, stop making stuff up.

My Question:
Does the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts, Yes or No?

Your Reply:

Yes they start the game with the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule because they are part of the Formation that comes with it. It is what gives the Devastators Relentless.

Don't start your answer with "Yes" if you are now asserting the Answer to the above was "No".

Shall we continue with your answer of:
No, the Devastator Squad do not have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts.

Or maybe you can read the entire thing and see what I was getting at instead of jumping to conclusions? Because I clearly explained myself in that sentence, to make your technical self happy:

"They would not start the game with Relentless but because they have the "First Fire then the Blade Special Rule they would get Relentless on the turn they arrive from reserves"

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:
[

So by this logic if I run a harlequin masque and join a shadowseer to a squad of banshees they can all charge after running. Interesting. I bet there are a tons of ways this interpretation could be abused.

You would have to quote me the relevant rules. I don't play Harlequin. I would be happy to read them though.

Sure,

"Rising Crescendo: From the start of the second turn, all units in this detachment that have the Fleet special rule can Run and Charge in the same turn."

So if you have a IC that has fleet, and you add him to a unit from the detachment then the IC, while in that unit can run and charge on the same turn.

So the shadow seer would no longer be a unit from the harlequin detachment when it joined the other unit?

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Ah, so you are asserting that before they start the Game, the Devastator Squad have the Relentless Special Rule listed in their profile? gotcha.
I'm sorry but that is a clear mistake. The RaW tell you when they get Relentless, and not before:
"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve"
Please follow the Rules.

That is not what I said at all, I said they come with "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule before the game start, stop making stuff up.

Lance845 wrote:

Jesus man you are a joke! I wrote the entire thing out earlier and was explaining a specific portion of that in that quote to Blacktalos, you really are desperate to try and prove me wrong aren't you? The fact you are going through my posts to try and make me look bad is proof! Really, so a Devastator Squad is not long a Devastator Squad? Seriously can you hear yourself? My IQ is dropping... You are REALLY being technical dude, im just getting to the point and you want everything word for word, might need to chill out a bit your getting way to worked up over this.

When I ask you to quote rules or you claim something is RAW you need to be technical. Benefit and Confer are not the same thing. Neither is model and unit. And neither are devastators and devastator squads.

I know what you were getting at:
"First the Fire then the Blade" does not confer to the IC. And i've already agreed to such. Because of all the p166 support you have.

But let's move on from that.
- the Devastator Squad do not have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts.

When does the Devastator Squad obtain that Special Rule, and what models are in the Devastator Squad when the Squad gets the Rule?

Lance845 wrote:
When I ask you to quote rules or you claim something is RAW you need to be technical. Benefit and Confer are not the same thing. Neither is model and unit. And neither are devastators and devastator squads.

Well when you decide to ask me to "quote rules" ill do that, instead of jus going on about "pics please"

Trystis wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Trystis wrote:
[

So by this logic if I run a harlequin masque and join a shadowseer to a squad of banshees they can all charge after running. Interesting. I bet there are a tons of ways this interpretation could be abused.

You would have to quote me the relevant rules. I don't play Harlequin. I would be happy to read them though.

Sure,

"Rising Crescendo: From the start of the second turn, all units in this detachment that have the Fleet special rule can Run and Charge in the same turn."

So if you have a IC that has fleet, and you add him to a unit from the detachment then the IC, while in that unit can run and charge on the same turn.

So the shadow seer would no longer be a unit from the harlequin detachment when it joined the other unit?

When a IC joins a unit it is considered a part of that unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. If it has fleet it meets the requirements in the Rising Crescendo Special rule. It is a member of a unit in the detachment that has fleet. Why would it not get the benefit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
When I ask you to quote rules or you claim something is RAW you need to be technical. Benefit and Confer are not the same thing. Neither is model and unit. And neither are devastators and devastator squads.

Well when you decide to ask me to "quote rules" ill do that, instead of jus going on about "pics please"

Well you cannot decide if it's Unit or Model or Benefit or Confer. I figure it's best if you just show me a picture of the page so that we can clear up what is you cutting corners in writing out the rules and what is the actual rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
But let's move on from that.
- the Devastator Squad do not have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts.
When does the Devastator Squad obtain that Special Rule, and what models are in the Devastator Squad when the Squad gets the Rule?

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

The above is RAW, they get the Relentless Special Rule the turn they arrive from Deep Strike and it would be a Devastator Squad arriving from Deep Strike.

 gmaleron wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
So let me get this straight:
Pro IC charge/relentless = IC counts as unit for all rules purposes.
Con IC charge/relentless = Special rules do not confer upon the IC from the unit and vice versa.
Is this the two arguments made? I'm tempted to just roll off for it if there is a disagreement in game.

That would be the argument yes. Except it's not really because Glameron is confusing Confer for Benefit and then using the words interchangeably. He also keeps mixing up Units and Models, but doesn't seem to think the distinction is very important.

Have to excuse Lancer, he is exaggerating things because he is upset that I am disagreeing with him and as you can see acting immaturely about it. He feels that attacking my character will win him the argument even though he has admitted to not even having the rules in front of him several times and feels compelled to make things up to try and make himself look like he is in the right.

However that is the basis of the argument, a friendly debate turned sour by the poor attitude of one who disagrees with me.

Thank you for the clarification.
It's quite possible everyone here could agree to disagree for a long time so I would say house rule it one way or the other if there is a debate within your respective metas. No need to get carried away over GW rules writing

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But let's move on from that.
- the Devastator Squad do not have the Relentless Special Rule when the Game starts.
When does the Devastator Squad obtain that Special Rule, and what models are in the Devastator Squad when the Squad gets the Rule?

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

The above is RAW, they get the Relentless Special Rule the turn they arrive from Deep Strike and it would be a Devastator Squad arriving from Deep Strike.

Is a IC that is joined with the Dev Squad in reserves a part of the Dev squad when they leave the drop pod?

Lance845 wrote:
Is a IC that is joined with the Dev Squad in reserves a part of the Dev squad when they leave the drop pod?

Yes he is, however this is where we start to disagree and its all about the fact that the only reason the Devastator Squad has relentless the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves is because of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule.

Now I really do understand where you are coming from, however its how Special Rules are described under Independent Characters:

SPECIAL RULES under the Independent Character Section of the Rulebook page 166:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special Rules are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."

Now I have underlined the points in that small paragraph that to me make it seem like he would not be able to benefit from the Relentless Special Rule that the Devastator Squad gets. The only reason I say this is because it took another Special Rule (First the Fire then the Blade) to give them Relntless in the first place, and since it does not "specify in the rule itself" I just don't see how the Commander is getting Relentless.

And to be frank I apologize if I was acting like a dick, middle of a 12 hour shift on top of my love of the game may have gotten the best of me.

 gmaleron wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Is a IC that is joined with the Dev Squad in reserves a part of the Dev squad when they leave the drop pod?

Yes he is, however this is where we start to disagree and its all about the fact that the only reason the Devastator Squad has relentless the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves is because of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule.

Now I really do understand where you are coming from, however its how Special Rules are described under Independent Characters:

SPECIAL RULES under the Independent Character Section of the Rulebook page 166:

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special Rules are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."

Now I have underlined the points in that small paragraph that to me make it seem like he would not be able to benefit from the Relentless Special Rule that the Devastator Squad gets. The only reason I say this is because it took another Special Rule (First the Fire then the Blade) to give them Relntless in the first place, and since it does not "specify in the rule itself" I just don't see how the Commander is getting Relentless.

And to be frank I apologize if I was acting like a dick, middle of a 12 hour shift on top of my love of the game may have gotten the best of me.

None of the stuff you underlined matters. Because the IC can benefit from the rule even if it doesn't have it. The rule is THE UNIT gets relentless. And at the time that that triggers the IC is part of the UNIT. Therefore the IC gets relentless. Just because it does not have the trigger condition does not mean it is not in the area of effect when it goes off.

As for charging on the turn it arrives. Again, it does not HAVE the rule, but the rule triggers to the units when they arrive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, the special rule is.

Upon condition x target gains y.

The IC is considered part of target for ALL RULES PURPOSES.

I get what your saying man and I understand it doesn't "trigger" until after the unit arrives and he is already apart of it but aren't we still ignoring the part of the having to specifically say it confers to the Independent Character? Not talking about Relentless, but rather the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule as the IC does not start with that Special Rule because he has to join the Devastator Squad who come with it when your purchase the Formation.

 gmaleron wrote:
I get what your saying man and I understand it doesn't "trigger" until after the unit arrives and he is already apart of it but aren't we still ignoring the part of the having to specifically say it confers to the Independent Character? Not talking about Relentless, but rather the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule as the IC does not start with that Special Rule because he has to join the Devastator Squad who come with it when your purchase the Formation.

No. Because Blade does not give a direct benefit itself. It triggers a buff to a unit. Blade does not give any benefit in and of itself. It lays out conditions in which other units gain benefits. If those conditions are met, the unit gains the benefit. Is the IC part of the unit? Yeah? It gains the benefit. Lets pretend that Skyhammer also included a squad of Terminators. Guess what? The rule still works exactly the same way with the Terminators there. The Units it targets get the benefits it lays out under the conditions it sets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is why it is a formation special rule and not a unit special rule.

Lance845 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
I get what your saying man and I understand it doesn't "trigger" until after the unit arrives and he is already apart of it but aren't we still ignoring the part of the having to specifically say it confers to the Independent Character? Not talking about Relentless, but rather the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule as the IC does not start with that Special Rule because he has to join the Devastator Squad who come with it when your purchase the Formation.

No. Because Blade does not give a direct benefit itself. It triggers a buff to a unit. Blade does not give any benefit in and of itself. It lays out conditions in which other units gain benefits.

I understand that yes it does give out benefits, however it is still listed as a "Special Rule" and really there is nothing that says he can ignore the the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character portion of the Independent Character's rules in regards to "Special Rules." To me it seems they may have listed it as a "Special Rule" for the sole purpose of preventing Independent Characters from joining the unit. That and there is only one "Special Rules" not Formation Special Rules or Unit Special Rules in the Rulebook, its a RAW vs RAI debate. I am not sold completely on that opinion and I actually wrote GW about it and will let you know if you wish what the say when I get a response. Agree to disagree, mainly just because everywhere ive played including some big National Tournaments recently i've never seen any character join a unit from a Formation and get their Special Rules.

Consider for a moment Objective Secured.

The detachment has a special rule called "Objective Secured" which itself grants a special rule also called "Objective Secured" to specific units.

Every unit in a CAD does not have Objective Secured because it's listed in the CAD. Only the troops that the formation special rules gives it to.

First Fire then the Blade is not given to every unit in the Skyhammer. The Skyhammer has it and then it gives it's benefits to the units it specifies.

 gmaleron wrote:
I get what your saying man and I understand it doesn't "trigger" until after the unit arrives and he is already apart of it but aren't we still ignoring the part of the having to specifically say it confers to the Independent Character? Not talking about Relentless, but rather the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule as the IC does not start with that Special Rule because he has to join the Devastator Squad who come with it when your purchase the Formation.

No, because of how "conferring" works.

When the RaW says: "the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character"
This means exactly what it says: Any Special Rules that the Unit has cannot be claimed by the IC: You can't say "He's in the Unit, so he now has "First Fire then the Blade" "

That would be conferring the Special Rule they have ("First Fire then the Blade") onto the Character.

If, however, a model (The apothecary) or a Unit (The Devastator Squad) have a Special Rule of their own (Narthecium) or ("First Fire then the Blade") that *gives* an effect or a Special rule to the Unit (It could be another Unit, it could be their own Unit), then the Rule obtained: Feel No Pain or Relentless, are obtained (can be obtained) by every single model.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
First Fire then the Blade is not given to every unit in the Skyhammer. The Skyhammer has it and then it gives it's benefits to the units it specifies.

But we are agreed that the IC never gets the "First Fire then the Blade" special Rule right?

He only gets to obtain the effects of that rule when they are being "dished out"?

 BlackTalos wrote:
\

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
First Fire then the Blade is not given to every unit in the Skyhammer. The Skyhammer has it and then it gives it's benefits to the units it specifies.

But we are agreed that the IC never gets the "First Fire then the Blade" special Rule right?

He only gets to obtain the effects of that rule when they are being "dished out"?

Correct.But it is worth specifying that NONE of the units in the Skyhammer have the rule. The formation does. The units get exactly what the rule tells them they get and nothing more. Devestators Relentless on the turn they arrive. Assault the ability to charge on the turn they arrive (which is not, itself, a special rule the UNIT carries. Just a stipulation added to the unit granted by the formation.)

If you don't confuse 'benefit' with 'confer', the rules issue is pretty clear.

ICs do not need have to have the special rule to benefit from rules which affect the entire Unit.

Conferring the special rule is different from Benefiting from it.

Lance845 wrote:
Correct.But it is worth specifying that NONE of the units in the Skyhammer have the rule. The formation does. The units get exactly what the rule tells them they get and nothing more. Devestators Relentless on the turn they arrive. Assault the ability to charge on the turn they arrive (which is not, itself, a special rule the UNIT carries. Just a stipulation added to the unit granted by the formation.)

I see, that kinda makes sense, though when i read:
"the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any Special Rules that those units gain"

It does make it sound like the Units get "First Fire then the Blade" as a special rule. I would have though only models or Units get special Rules, not "the Formation". Just as command benefits also apply to Units and Models or to the Warlord (again this would be the warlord model)

Lance845 wrote:


Correct.But it is worth specifying that NONE of the units in the Skyhammer have the rule. The formation does. The units get exactly what the rule tells them they get and nothing more.

People keep saying this, but I, and others, have pointed out several times that the rules for Formations SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY state that the units in the Formation GAIN the rules, it doesn't say that they benefited or affected by.

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."

"If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation."

The units gain the Special Rules, they are not just under the effect of the Formation's Special Rules.

Even if they were under the effect of the Formation's Special Rules, the FTBTTF Special Rule is worded to still give the permission to the Assault Squads. It doesn't even really matter "who has the rule" because the rule is specifying a permission for a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The IC joins the Assault Squad.

He is now considered a part of the Assault Squad for all rules purposes.

What unit is he in? He's in the Assault Squad. The Assault Squad that is in the Skyhammer Formation.

Who gets permission from the FTBTTF permission to charge on the turn they arrive from Reserve?

The Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Formation.

He doesn't change which detachment he belongs to or anything like that. He doesn't gain the Special Rule himself.

He's just in the Assault Squad that's in the Skyhammer Formation.

It's like Objective Secured. An IC, an HQ choice, joins a troop unit that has Objective Secured (he can even be from a different detachment than the unit. Joining a unit and being affected by a rule do not change the detachment structure). Does the IC gain ObSec? No, he doesn't. But for the rules, the IC is a part of the unit. If his model is within 3" of the objective, the unit is holding the objective. Which has ObSec. The IC doesn't "get" ObSec, but the unit gains the benefit. This is how everyone plays this rule and no one has lost their mind over it, confused "gain" and "benefit" in an attempt to stymie something they are deathly afraid of, etc.

If I join two independsnt characters together and they form a unit what's the name of that unit?

If I take an inqusitor and ministorum priest and join them they for a unit. It is not called a ministorum priest.

If I buy an inquisitor and assault marine squad and join them. The inqusitor still does not become an assault squad.

When the rules reference specific models such as stormboyz, skyclaws, or assault squads it only pertains to that specific squad name. That squad name is defined by the codex to include models under that description.
Open your codex and look at the assault marine data slate I assure you there is no independsnt charscters listed.

If a special character is an upgrade to that squad in thier dataslate only then is he considered part of that squad name. If an IC that is attached to the unit is part of that unit but he is not part of that unit name.

Seriously this isn't just raw this is common sense is an imqusitor in power armour attached to a squad of terminators a terminator squad? No it's a single unit comprised of terminators and an inqusitor. If ghazkull attached to a squad of stormboyz a stormboyz squad no it's a single unit comprised of ghazkull and stormboyz.

Furthermore the attached IC has a clearly defined exclusion he cannot deepstrike with assault marines unless he has deepstrike of his own per deepstrike rules. Those rules dictate he can't charge. The first problem is IC s don't gain rules from formations in units they join(per IC rules). The second problem is the formation rules doesnf even buff the entire assault squads unit; it specifically states only the assault squads themselves.

You guys keep twisting rules saying it effects the entire unit but it never says the word unit it specifically only affects models chosen from two dataslates. I'm not even going to comment on the arguments that the rules are not gained until a certain turn or that special rules somehow pass over as a benefit but is not gained because those arguments don't even exist in the rulebook. Again more twisting and cheating to make a point when the rulebook clearly says oherwise.

No other formstion does this without specifically stating all models in the unit. If you try to use this at your friendly local store you are cheating plain and simple. This is why I simply chose to play itc rules at local stores since I'll avoid arguments with "that guy" trying to take advantage and argue with people for an advantage that is directly stated in the rules is not allowed. And since the itc has already ruled similar arguments of this are illegal. I'm not really worried this will be an issue at all.

If the rule affected models, it would say it affected models.

Just like the rule doesn't say "unit", it doesn't say "models" either.

The name of the unit is Assault Squad, so, it's referring to the unit.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

If the rule affected models, it would say it affected models.

Just like the rule doesn't say "unit", it doesn't say "models" either.

The name of the unit is Assault Squad, so, it's referring to the unit.

No it doesn't say unit. You're making up words.
It clearly directly defines the rules to "assault squad"
The only definition of that is in your codex.
Open it up and look at all the models associated to "assault squad"
I assure you no independsnt character is listed
Anything you state otherwise is you making up a word that doesn't exist in these rules.

How is this still going? Why are waacs still assuming ic can use the formation rules? Smh these people.

gungo wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

If the rule affected models, it would say it affected models.

Just like the rule doesn't say "unit", it doesn't say "models" either.

The name of the unit is Assault Squad, so, it's referring to the unit.

No it doesn't say unit. You're making up words.
It clearly directly defines the rules to "assault squad"
The only definition of that is in your codex.
Open it up and look at all the models associated to "assault squad"
I assure you no independsnt character is listed
Anything you state otherwise is you making up a word that doesn't exist in these rules.

Is the name of the unit and the unit composition a part of the rules?

And

Which does the IC join the unit for rules purposes, all or some?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
How is this still going? Why are waacs still assuming ic can use the formation rules? Smh these people.

No the Waacs are still denying that the IC can Charge with the Assault Marines...

Some other player seem to finally have figured out how the actual Rules work.
I think BlackSwanDelta has explained it quite well, if you can be bothered to read other people's posts...

I think this matter is settled for me, i have made my call. I don't play Marines by the way, and i don't think i'll ever see a Skyhammer in my area. But i find knowing Rules quite educational.....

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
How is this still going? Why are waacs still assuming ic can use the formation rules? Smh these people.

The only models I own that could be construed as "Space Marine" in some ridiculous fashion are the unpainted Dark Angel Dark Vengeance stuff still on their sprues in my closet.

You're telling me I'm arguing for the SHF using ICs because I want to win?

The bullyboys formation from the WAAAGH supplement specifically says "models in this formation gain +1 WS"

So that's pretty clear that only the bullyboy meganobz get the +1 WS. If it said, "The meganobz unit gets +1 WS" then any IC that joined the unit would get the +1 WS

 Icculus wrote:
The bullyboys formation from the WAAAGH supplement specifically says "models in this formation gain +1 WS"

So that's pretty clear that only the bullyboy meganobz get the +1 WS. If it said, "The meganobz unit gets +1 WS" then any IC that joined the unit would get the +1 WS

In the case of the current example, the issue also stems from the fact the rule says the equivalent of: bullyboys formation - "The meganobz get +1 WS" where you'd assume "the meganobz" means "the Meganobs Unit", even though it does not say "Unit"...

I know this doesn't promote conversation and debate, but shouldn't both sides simply agree to disagree.

The same points are being made over and over again to no conclusion.

I did find a lot of folks in this thread to add to my ignore list. That way I can focus on the sensible folks and avoid the rule set breaker donkeycave crowd.

I've looked at this from both sides and I too can't find any reason IC can't assault or gain relentless.

The pro-assaulting crowd has clearly laid out all the available options and rules mechanics. The Nay side keeps coming back with arguments that were disputed. I personally don't like that IC can assault I think its probably bad for the game, but as its worded I can't see anything that would prevent them.

This will make a huge shift in army design if you know Lysander can come knocking on your Fortification turn 1.

Since no one actually addressed this, I will repeat myself:

So, the real question boils down to, "How does the rule itself specify that it affects the IC as well as other models in the unit?" This is the phrase from the Independent Character Special Rules section that certain parties seem to miss right at the beginning.

Stubborn states that if one model in the unit has this rule, this affect happens and the entire unit is affected by it. This is duplicated in many areas including Slow and Purposeful and Fearless.

Interestingly enough, Counter-Attack is a good example of it NOT affecting an IC. While a unit with a model that carries this Special Rule can initiate Counter-Attack bonuses, only the models who have the rule will actually gain the Attack bonus that Phase. So a Blood Angel Captain in a Grey Hunter Squad can be caught up as part of the Counter-Attack rule, but does not gain any advantage from it whatsoever.

The Formation Rules this thread is about have some that state (paraphrasing, slightly), "When X happens, B Squad gets Z Result."

Now, you can choose to believe like Blacktoof earlier stated that "B Squad" is not a unit, but this is incorrect since it references a unit by name instead of just a generic noun.

You can believe that when an IC joins "B Squad" that either "B Squad" ceases to exist or that the IC really isn't part of the unit. However, this is not the case, as the rules state otherwise. When the IC joins the unit, it counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

So, what does it mean that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes?

Well, going by the example of Stubborn above, it means that when a rule affects the entire unit, the IC is included in this affect, and no model is excluded.

Well, these rules in question are directed at a unit by name, and not the models of the unit. So, like Stubborn, since they are directed at the unit, the IC gets brought in along with the Sergeant. So, like Slow and Purposeful, the IC is affected along with all the other models in the unit. So, like Fearless, the IC is affected along with all the other models in the unit.

This string of logic does not worry about which verb is being used, just the relationship between how Special Rules are Defined and how they interact with Units and Independent Characters.

If we're coming to conclusion time, I'm on the RaW side that the Independant Character can indeed benefit.

But my own point of view would be that this should definitely not be allowed... I'm just hoping the FaQ Team realises this sooner or later and provides a definite answer.

I'd have no issue agreeing to either side if i played a game, but YMDC tends to lean towards "what do the Rules actually say?" and those have been discussed enough.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
The bullyboys formation from the WAAAGH supplement specifically says "models in this formation gain +1 WS"

So that's pretty clear that only the bullyboy meganobz get the +1 WS. If it said, "The meganobz unit gets +1 WS" then any IC that joined the unit would get the +1 WS

In the case of the current example, the issue also stems from the fact the rule says the equivalent of: bullyboys formation - "The meganobz get +1 WS" where you'd assume "the meganobz" means "the Meganobs Unit", even though it does not say "Unit"...

Well with the bullyboyz formation it spefically says "models" so there really is no assumption. This rule says "models in this formation gain +1 WS"
The skyhammer rule doesnt say models, it only talks about the unit and the squads. And as we know, if a unit has permission to charge, then the IC attached is part of that unit and charges along with the unit.

 Icculus wrote:
The bullyboys formation from the WAAAGH supplement specifically says "models in this formation gain +1 WS"

So that's pretty clear that only the bullyboy meganobz get the +1 WS. If it said, "The meganobz unit gets +1 WS" then any IC that joined the unit would get the +1 WS

You can bet that the committee that came up with the Bullyboys was not the same committee that came up with the Skyhammer formation. It is probable that they may have met each other occassionally, maybe even shared a beer or two, but it is obvious they do not communicate at the office.

Or the same team was pressured by higher-ups to make sure the new assault marines they put so much money into making the molds for sell.

Or the same team realised that the assault squads weren't going to sell without special rules and, voila, formation.

I do find it amusing that while people have been complaining that assault squads were useless all this time, and the moment they become useful people start crying foul and 'bad for the game!'

There's no pleasing the beast, I suppose.

I find it bewildering that gungo finds deepstriking with the IC attached to the unit on turn 1 perfectly fine, but objects to the IC being able to charge with it. Following his reasoning,
the IC shouldn't be able to join them at all if they were deep striking in the first turn.

In fact, he should never allow ICs to benefit from Apothecary FNP, or Hit and Run, or preferred enemy, or ATSKNF because by his logic an attached IC is never allowed to gain the special rules of the unit he's with.

This is what I believe is called 'Doublethink'.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

In fact, he should never allow ICs to benefit from Apothecary FNP, or Hit and Run, or preferred enemy, or ATSKNF because by his logic an attached IC is never allowed to gain the special rules of the unit he's with.

Formation rules, while Special Rules, are applied to models from the formation.

If I attach a Techpriest Dominus to a unit of Skitarii within a Skitarii Battle Maniple Formation, does the Techpriest Dominus gain Crusader(a Formation special rule)?
No. The special rule is granted to models comprising the units within the formation

This is what I believe is called 'Doublethink'.

It's really not.

Yes, the special rule listed in the formation is given to the models

The special rule then grants the ability to charge to the unit of Assault Marines. Not the models,the unit

Oh look, the IC is a member o the unit for all rules purposes. Guess that means they have the ability to charge.

Proven. Over and over. Its not that tricky, really, just following the clear, straightforward rules through. Not confusing / ocnflating unit and model, or failing to note which rules are granted, and when.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

In fact, he should never allow ICs to benefit from Apothecary FNP, or Hit and Run, or preferred enemy, or ATSKNF because by his logic an attached IC is never allowed to gain the special rules of the unit he's with.

Formation rules, while Special Rules, are applied to models from the formation

If I attach a Techpriest Dominus to a unit of Skitarii within a Skitarii Battle Maniple Formation, does the Techpriest Dominus gain Crusader(a Formation special rule)?
No. The special rule is granted to models comprising the units within the formation

Why not? If gives them Crusader and if one model in a unit has Crusader, the entire unit gains it. Same with the Counterattack example used a few posts above with a BA IC joining a SW unit, otherwise Uriah Jacobus would give his unit Counterattack but only he'd benefit. This is like saying a 6th Edition Raptors/Raven Guard IC joined to a non-Raven Guard/Raptors unit doesn't confer Scout because it's his Chapter Tactic giving him Scout.

Taikishi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

In fact, he should never allow ICs to benefit from Apothecary FNP, or Hit and Run, or preferred enemy, or ATSKNF because by his logic an attached IC is never allowed to gain the special rules of the unit he's with.

Formation rules, while Special Rules, are applied to models from the formation

If I attach a Techpriest Dominus to a unit of Skitarii within a Skitarii Battle Maniple Formation, does the Techpriest Dominus gain Crusader(a Formation special rule)?
No. The special rule is granted to models comprising the units within the formation

Why not? If gives them Crusader and if one model in a unit has Crusader, the entire unit gains it. Same with the Counterattack example used a few posts above with a BA IC joining a SW unit, otherwise Uriah Jacobus would give his unit Counterattack but only he'd benefit. This is like saying a 6th Edition Raptors/Raven Guard IC joined to a non-Raven Guard/Raptors unit doesn't confer Scout because it's his Chapter Tactic giving him Scout.

The Techpriest is not from the formation, so he does not get the special rule. He can however benefit from it.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Correct.But it is worth specifying that NONE of the units in the Skyhammer have the rule. The formation does. The units get exactly what the rule tells them they get and nothing more. Devestators Relentless on the turn they arrive. Assault the ability to charge on the turn they arrive (which is not, itself, a special rule the UNIT carries. Just a stipulation added to the unit granted by the formation.)

I see, that kinda makes sense, though when i read:
"the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any Special Rules that those units gain"

It does make it sound like the Units get "First Fire then the Blade" as a special rule. I would have though only models or Units get special Rules, not "the Formation". Just as command benefits also apply to Units and Models or to the Warlord (again this would be the warlord model)

Ob Sec, pretty clearly does not give itself to the entire CAD. And the format of the special rules in formations does not follow the format of special rules in a unit. I.E. "Bulky (Broodlord Only)"

Instead we have special rules that specify units or models within their rules. Generally granting OTHER special rules to the units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
If I join two independsnt characters together and they form a unit what's the name of that unit?

Depends on the name of the unit the other one joined. They do not join "together" One IC joins the other and becomes a part of the others unit.

If I take an inqusitor and ministorum priest and join them they for a unit. It is not called a ministorum priest.

Again, who joins who?

If I buy an inquisitor and assault marine squad and join them. The inqusitor still does not become an assault squad.

He becomes a part of the assault squad, because for all rules purposes he is a part of the unit he joins.

Taikishi wrote:
Same with the Counterattack example used a few posts above with a BA IC joining a SW unit, otherwise Uriah Jacobus would give his unit Counterattack but only he'd benefit.

I should point out that Counter-Attack does not really provide any bonuses to a model that does not have this special rule. The BA Captain in my example can react with Counter-Attack, but he would be fighting as if charged just like normal.

Another interesting example is taking a Power/Artificer Armour Chapter Master with Orbital Strike and choosing to put him between two units, Terminators or Centurions.

The Terminators are Relentless. But the Chapter Master would not be able to move and use Orbital Strike, since Relentless only affects the models.

The Centurions are Slow and Purposeful (or at least were a couple weeks ago). Slow and Purposeful affects the unit with a model inside. The Chapter Master would be able to move and fire Orbital Strike just as if he was in Terminator Armour or on a Bike. He wouldn't be able to fire in Overwatch, though.

Lance845 wrote:
Ob Sec, pretty clearly does not give itself to the entire CAD. And the format of the special rules in formations does not follow the format of special rules in a unit. I.E. "Bulky (Broodlord Only)"

Actually, Objective Secured doesn't care what Role the unit in question is, the Command Benefits take care of that, I believe.

And Formation Special Rules can be specific just like any other Datasheet, like Relentless (Wraiths). Just because they haven't done so yet, doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the special rule listed in the formation is given to the models

The special rule then grants the ability to charge to the unit of Assault Marines. Not the models,the unit

Oh look, the IC is a member o the unit for all rules purposes. Guess that means they have the ability to charge.

Proven. Over and over. Its not that tricky, really, just following the clear, straightforward rules through. Not confusing / ocnflating unit and model, or failing to note which rules are granted, and when.

the special rule you are quoting never states in any rules as written that it grants the unit the ability to do anything.

You are confusing the unit name of a datasheet with a unit on the table top.

You can buy an 'assault squad' which is the unit name on the datasheet. That is made of models, those models have special rules from their wargear, their datasheet entry, and any formation you organize them into.

You can organize them into a sky hammer annihilation force, they gain benefits from the formation that call out it affects units from the formation (the first rule), all models in the formation (no rule), or specifies which squads chosen for the formation get certain rules (parts of the remaining 3 rules specify squads from the formation).

You can then purchase an IC and join it to the assault squad at deployment, or later during the game to the squad by using the rules for joining an IC to a unit.
The IC has its own rules, and they do not confer to the unit it has joined.
The assault squad has its own rules, they do not confer to the IC that joined.
They do have permission to confer to each other if the rule specifies it affects the unit, or that if one model in the unit has the rule it affects the whole unit. e.g. shock deployment, rites of teleportation, stubborn, stealth, etc.

3 out of four the special rules do not specify they are unit rules, so an attached IC has no rules as written permission to benefit.

an unit made of 4 spaces marines, a space marine sgt [purchased from the datasheet: assault squad], and a captain[purchased from datasheet: captain] is an unit on the table top, made up of models. Those models form one unit on the table top, but they come from different datasheets that are arranged in different formations/detachments. Some of the models are from one datasheet, one is from another. The IC is not from the 'assault marine' datasheet or any formation/detachment the assault marine squad is arranged into, and we are not told it can count as being from it. Considering it is most likely from a different detachment/formation it would need SPECIFIC wording to count as being from that, such as that given in the new 'decurion style' detachments which have a detachment with formations in it, and explicitly state the models can count as being from more than one formation/detachment with the limitation of having to be from the ones in the 'decurion' even though models are not allowed to be from more than one formation/detachment.

stating they affect the squad references the squad that was purchased from the specific squad datasheet for the formation, it does not specify unit so therefore it would not effect any other models in the unit than the models purchased from those squads for that detachment. Hence the wording "assault squads from the skyhammer annhilation force may" and not "assault squad units". Without any permissive rule saying it affects the unit, then it cannot affect the unit.

anyone in any of these posts that claims or states it is a unit rule, or it affects the unit is making a HYWPI arguement, as plainly there are no rules in writing that state it affects the unit. Unlike shock deployment from the same formation which does specify unit. There is no permission to say a rule that affects models from one datasheet, can affect a unit, without it saying something about it affecting the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
the special rule you are quoting never states in any rules as written that it grants the unit the ability to do anything.

You are confusing the unit name of a datasheet with a unit on the table top.

Actually, I think you are confused.

blaktoof wrote:
You can buy an 'assault squad' which is the unit name on the datasheet. That is made of models, those models have special rules from their wargear, their datasheet entry, and any formation you organize them into.

Right, all with the unit name of "assault squad".

blaktoof wrote:
You can organize them into a sky hammer annihilation force, they gain benefits from the formation that call out it affects units from the formation (the first rule), all models in the formation (no rule), or specifies which squads chosen for the formation get certain rules (parts of the remaining 3 rules specify squads from the formation).

Correct.

blaktoof wrote:
You can then purchase an IC and join it to the assault squad at deployment, or later during the game to the squad by using the rules for joining an IC to a unit.

Correct. It would have to be in Reserves for Deployment, though, since the whole Formation has to drop.

blaktoof wrote:
The IC has its own rules, and they do not confer to the unit it has joined.
The assault squad has its own rules, they do not confer to the IC that joined.

In general, but some rules affect the unit the model is in, and that's where some people are having problems.

blaktoof wrote:
They do have permission to confer to each other if the rule specifies it affects the unit, or that if one model in the unit has the rule it affects the whole unit. e.g. shock deployment, rites of teleportation, stubborn, stealth, etc.

Correct.

blaktoof wrote:
3 out of four the special rules do not specify they are unit rules, so an attached IC has no rules as written permission to benefit.

Incorrect. They specify they are rules for units by name. Calling out a unit by name is not ignoring that they are a unit. The generic word of unit would not work, since both unit names on the list have different options. And after all, there are no "Devastator Marines" or "Assault Marines", nor are they referenced, and if there were, they would be leaving the Sergeants out.

Or at least, you have yet to prove that disassociation, or as I said earlier, that it ceases to be a unit by that name when an IC joins it.

blaktoof wrote:
an unit made of 4 spaces marines, a space marine sgt [purchased from the datasheet: assault squad], and a captain[purchased from datasheet: captain] is an unit on the table top, made up of models. Those models form one unit on the table top, but they come from different datasheets that are arranged in different formations/detachments. Some of the models are from one datasheet, one is from another. The IC is not from the 'assault marine' datasheet, and we are not told it can count as being from it.

Correct. Now, where does it state that the IC is not part of the unit by name just because it comes from a different datasheet? The IC rules seem to state otherwise.

blaktoof wrote:
Considering it is most likely from a different detachment/formation it would need SPECIFIC wording to count as being from that, such as that given in the new 'decurion style' detachments which have a detachment with formations in it, and explicitly state the models can count as being from more than one formation/detachment with the limitation of having to be from the ones in the 'decurion' even though models are not allowed to be from more than one formation/detachment.

And if the rules in question were just for models in that formation or didn't reference units or units by name, you would be correct. But they DO reference units and units by name.

Or to state it another way, the IC doesn't gain the rule, but the rule encompasses the unit that the IC is part of.

blaktoof wrote:
stating they affect the squad references the squad that was purchased from the specific squad datasheet for the formation, it does not specify unit so therefore it would not effect any other models in the unit than the models purchased from those squads for that detachment. Hence the wording "assault squads from the skyhammer annhilation force may" and not "assault squad units". Without any permissive rule saying it affects the unit, then it cannot affect the unit.

Okay, I am going to a need a rules quote for when a unit is called by name, it only means the models purchased for that unit, and not the actual unit that is present on the tabletop. Could you please provide that for me? Just as good would be the rule that when an IC joins a unit, that unit stops being that unit and is no longer called by its original datasheet name.

After all of your posts of yours on your thread, you still have not made a proper case for this little thing. I think it's just how you see the game.

blaktoof wrote:
anyone in any of these posts that claims or states it is a unit rule, or it affects the unit is making a HYWPI arguement, as plainly there are no rules in writing that state it affects the unit. Unlike shock deployment from the same formation which does specify unit. There is no permission to say a rule that affects models from one datasheet, can affect a unit, without it saying something about it affecting the unit.

Actually, we are playing RAW and not so much of HYWPI.

Anyone who states that an IC joined to a unit is not part of that unit, that the joined unit is no longer known by its name, or that a unit name is not referring to a unit, is ignoring rules and definitely playing in HIWPI land.

I read over the Independent Character rules last night and its pretty clear that unless specifically stated, IC do not get the rules from another units special rules.

someone should post the actual verbage and put this horse in the grave

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
I read over the Independent Character rules last night and its pretty clear that unless specifically stated, IC do not get the rules from another units special rules.

someone should post the actual verbage and put this horse in the grave

They have. What people also forget is that when Special Rules that affect a unit, they affect the joined Independent Character as well. Go read the example Rule Stubborn, and then try Fearless, Relentless, Slow and Purposeful, and Counter-Attack USRs for some variety on how it does and does not affect the IC.

The rules of this Formation affect units.

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
I read over the Independent Character rules last night and its pretty clear that unless specifically stated, IC do not get the rules from another units special rules.

someone should post the actual verbage and put this horse in the grave

No one is saying the IC gets the rules.

Incorrect. They specify they are rules for units by name. Calling out a unit by name is not ignoring that they are a unit. The generic word of unit would not work, since both unit names on the list have different options. And after all, there are no "Devastator Marines" or "Assault Marines", nor are they referenced, and if there were, they would be leaving the Sergeants out.

actually there are no models on the table that are devestator marines, or assault marines. The unit name devestator squad allows you to buy models which are "space marines" and "Sgt" or "vet sgt"

all of the models purchased for that unit entry which fills a specific part of a formation detachment, are bought as "devestator squads" or "Assault squads" so the sgt is not left out.

the IC is joined to the unit, but the IC is not from the assault squad, and there is no rule anywhere that allows it.

three of the rules allow things for the squads from the formation, not the assault squad unit, or any permutation of the words that results in it being a unit rule by using the word unit somewhere in the rule. One of the rules does state it affects units.

I can buy an assault squad unit, it has models in it that may be space marine, sgt, or vet sgt. I can put them on the table when the rules allow. They are a unit on the table, if I wanted to reference the rules for the models in the unit I would look at the datasheet they are brought from, which is "assault squad" this datasheet was one of the requirements for the formation they are from which is "sky hammer annihilation force".

I can also buy an independent character, that has the power to join other units of models on the table within certain permissive rules. This IC could be bought from the datasheet captain. It may be in a formation called 'Combined Arms Detachment'

Through rules I can join the IC unit to the assault squad unit. Forming 1 unit from the two separate units. The new unit counts as one unit, and the IC counts as a member of the unit. They models may have different special rules from the various units they were originally bought from/their wargear/their formation. They do not by default gain each others rules, and there are rules which state how they gain each others rules- in the case of rules that affect an unit it has to say "the unit gets to do this" or "if a model has this rule then the unit may" or "if at least one model in the unit has this rule the unit may" etc.

Now the unit is made up of models from the "assault squad" datasheet, and a model from the "captain datasheet" The assault squad was not from the captain datasheet, and the captain is not from the assault squad datasheet. We know this because no model is allowed to belong to more than one formation/detachment so other than the obvious that they are two distinct and separate datasheets they are also from two separate formations/detachments. Some models have been given EXPLICIT permission to be from more than one detachment/formation through rules which are stated in things like the new marine strike force, craftworld warhosts, and the decurion formation. Neither the CAD IC or assault squad models from the SAF have this wording. So other than the fact they are from different datasheets, we also know they are not from the same datasheet because they are from different formations/detachments and are not allowed to be from a different one than the one they were chosen from in the army.

three of the rules for the SAF detachment do not reference the unit can benefit, they reference the squads. The squads are the name of datasheets, which have models chosen from them.

Yes the models are units on their own, and when you join 2 or more of these units (an IC, which is an unit on its own, and an assault squad which is an unit on its own) they do form 1 single unit, which the IC counts as being part of. However the IC is not from the assault squad. and the rule does not state the assault squad UNITS so it is not a rule that benefits UNITS. It is a rule that benefits the assault squad, that all the models in the assault squad unit benefit prior to the IC joining does not make it an unit rule, it has to say it affects the unit. Once you joined a model to the unit that is not from the assault squad you have an unit that has models from different datasheets/formations and not all of the models have the same rules. In this case one of the rules not all the models have is 'first the fire then the blade' and we are only told it affects the assault squad[which are models chosen from a datasheet which can be space marines, sgt, or vet sgt] not that it affects the unit.

An IC chosen from datasheet 'captain' that has a special rule that says "captains may face stomp at I10 d100 s4hits" can use its special rule, and is an unit. So the entire unit is benefiting as long as the captain does not have other models in the unit without the rule. If we join a tech priest dominus to the captain, we now have taken two separate units and made 1 unit. The techpriest dominus is not a captain, and the rule does not say 'the captains UNIT may face stomp at I10 d100 s4 hits" so the techpriest does not get to facestomp, because it is not from the captain datasheet, despite being in an unit with the captain. If my opponent asks me for the rules for the dominus, I look at the dominus datasheet, not the captain. And nothing anywhere tells me I can say "he gets to be from the captains datasheet when joined to the captain"

tldr- assault squad is an unit, an IC is an unit. Joining them makes 1 unit from 2 units, the IC counts as being in the unit. The IC is not from the assault squad however, as it is a separate datasheet in a separate formation. The IC is from its datasheet in a separate formation/detachment. The rule you are trying to benefit from does not state it benefits units in the rules.

Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

nah you are TFG for disallowing someone to play something that is perfectly legal.


the unit has permission, by name, to do the 1st turn charge.

the IC is part of the unit, and the special rule explicitly states otherwise that it affects the whole unit.



you just dont want to play against it, it has nothing to do with it being against RAW

 easysauce wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

nah you are TFG for disallowing someone to play something that is perfectly legal.


the unit has permission, by name, to do the 1st turn charge.

the IC is part of the unit, and the special rule explicitly states otherwise that it affects the whole unit.



you just dont want to play against it, it has nothing to do with it being against RAW

That sucks.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My skepticism runs high with this statement but should it be true I would advice first actually reading the rules as the marine player would be correct in his assertion that he is able to do so and secondly this is a thread discussion in which we are trying to best understand the rules of the game system, of which your addition to the thread with that comment had no bearing and wasn't constructive.

Thimn wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My skepticism runs high with this statement but should it be true I would advice first actually reading the rules as the marine player would be correct in his assertion that he is able to do so and secondly this is a thread discussion in which we are trying to best understand the rules of the game system, of which your addition to the thread with that comment had no bearing and wasn't constructive.

Yeaaaah...no.

Formation Special Rules do not apply to models taken from outside of the formation, unless the Special Rule is specifically listed to allow it.

Since there exists no named Special Rule which grants the ability which is so heavily coveted outside of the Formation Special Rule; it cannot be granted to ICs which join the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
actually there are no models on the table that are devestator marines, or assault marines. The unit name devestator squad allows you to buy models which are "space marines" and "Sgt" or "vet sgt"

Exactly my point.

blaktoof wrote:
all of the models purchased for that unit entry which fills a specific part of a formation detachment, are bought as "devestator squads" or "Assault squads" so the sgt is not left out.

Thank you for reiterating my point. Now, what are those units called?

blaktoof wrote:
the IC is joined to the unit, but the IC is not from the assault squad, and there is no rule anywhere that allows it.

Who said anything about "from", just that he is "part of" the assault squad.

So, then show me where it says this only affects models "from the assault squad"?

blaktoof wrote:
three of the rules allow things for the squads from the formation, not the assault squad unit, or any permutation of the words that results in it being a unit rule by using the word unit somewhere in the rule. One of the rules does state it affects units.

So, one cannot call a unit by the name on its datasheet and consider it a unit? Where is the rule to cause this difference to standard English?

blaktoof wrote:
Through rules I can join the IC unit to the assault squad unit. Forming 1 unit from the two separate units. The new unit counts as one unit, and the IC counts as a member of the unit. They models may have different special rules from the various units they were originally bought from/their wargear/their formation. They do not by default gain each others rules, and there are rules which state how they gain each others rules- in the case of rules that affect an unit it has to say "the unit gets to do this" or "if a model has this rule then the unit may" or "if at least one model in the unit has this rule the unit may" etc.

Correct. Some have had trouble with this. Your trouble starts before that, though.

blaktoof wrote:
Now the unit is made up of models from the "assault squad" datasheet, and a model from the "captain datasheet" The assault squad was not from the captain datasheet, and the captain is not from the assault squad datasheet. We know this because no model is allowed to belong to more than one formation/detachment so other than the obvious that they are two distinct and separate datasheets they are also from two separate formations/detachments. Some models have been given EXPLICIT permission to be from more than one detachment/formation through rules which are stated in things like the new marine strike force, craftworld warhosts, and the decurion formation. Neither the CAD IC or assault squad models from the SAF have this wording. So other than the fact they are from different datasheets, we also know they are not from the same datasheet because they are from different formations/detachments and are not allowed to be from a different one than the one they were chosen from in the army.

Now this is the part that is tripping you up, a little. While two models in a unit may be from different detachments, this does not invalidate their rules.

Another question, the Jump Captain joins the Assault Squad, what is the name of the unit? Is it still Assault Squad, or something else?

The IC rules tell us that the name of the unit will stay "Assault Squad".

Keep in mind that the datasheet only provides the list of rules, wargear, and options of the unit, and is NOT the unit itself.

blaktoof wrote:
three of the rules for the SAF detachment do not reference the unit can benefit, they reference the squads. The squads are the name of datasheets, which have models chosen from them.

Then it doesn't work, since datasheets are not deployed, just units. So, then when a unit is referenced by name, why do you consider it referencing a datasheet and not a unit?

blaktoof wrote:
Yes the models are units on their own, and when you join 2 or more of these units (an IC, which is an unit on its own, and an assault squad which is an unit on its own) they do form 1 single unit, which the IC counts as being part of. However the IC is not from the assault squad. and the rule does not state the assault squad UNITS so it is not a rule that benefits UNITS. It is a rule that benefits the assault squad, that all the models in the assault squad unit benefit prior to the IC joining does not make it an unit rule, it has to say it affects the unit. Once you joined a model to the unit that is not from the assault squad you have an unit that has models from different datasheets/formations and not all of the models have the same rules. In this case one of the rules not all the models have is 'first the fire then the blade' and we are only told it affects the assault squad[which are models chosen from a datasheet which can be space marines, sgt, or vet sgt] not that it affects the unit.

So what is it referencing when it is referencing "assault squad" if it is not addressing a unit? A datasheet? Than it is referencing a non-entity that cannot perform the actions which the rule directs.

Assault Squad is the name of the unit. When rules direct actions on the table, they refer to units. When rules refer to Assault Squads, they are referring to units named Assault Squads.

blaktoof wrote:
tldr- assault squad is an unit, an IC is an unit. Joining them makes 1 unit from 2 units, the IC counts as being in the unit. The IC is not from the assault squad however, as it is a separate datasheet in a separate formation. The IC is from its datasheet in a separate formation/detachment. The rule you are trying to benefit from does not state it benefits units in the rules.

TLDR: Assault squad is an unit, an IC is an unit. Joining them makes 1 unit from 2 units, the IC counts as being part of the unit (Assault Squad). The rule affects the assault squad which is a unit in the army. The IC is part of the Assault Squad. The IC participates as a member of the Assault Squad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeaaaah...no.

Formation Special Rules do not apply to models taken from outside of the formation, unless the Special Rule is specifically listed to allow it.

Since there exists no named Special Rule which grants the ability which is so heavily coveted outside of the Formation Special Rule; it cannot be granted to ICs which join the unit.

And that, gentlemen, is presenting a case on HIWPI, and not on RAW.

except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.


you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation, but this has been proven to

A: not always be true

and
B: specifically in this case, not true, as the special rules in the formation specifically state otherwise that they do in fact apply to the whole unit, not just models from the formation






literally, peopel like kaluwen's idea of "raw" is just so far off... by their definition,

if you cast enfeeble on a unit, and that unit contains an IC, the IC is not affected, cause hey, enfeeble only says it affects the whole unit, and special rules dont transfer onto ICs by default, even if the rule specifically states it affects the whole unit

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation, but this has been proven to

A: not always be true

and
B: specifically in this case, not true, as the special rules in the formation specifically state otherwise that they do in fact apply to the whole unit, not just models from the formation

So then if I put a Techpriest Dominus in a unit of Ruststalkers, as part of the "Sicarian Killclade Formation"--he gets to, once per game, Run during the Shooting Phase and then Charge?

Because let's face facts here, this is wishful thinking on your part. Special Rules have to state that they grant to the unit if a single model has them to include ICs. It's right there in black and white on page 166.

you have made a RAI statement that a rule that affects the unit name of a datasheet affects an unit on the tabletop.

The unit name of a datasheet has models which are bought from it, the unit on the table top can include models that are not from that datasheet unit name.

The rules never state the unit benefits, they state the assault squad.

the IC is never part of the assault squad, the IC can be part of the assault squads unit on the table top.

the rule does not grant anything at all to the assault squads unit, it grants something to the assault squad.

Why do you think they are referencing the datasheet the models are bought from instead of saying the unit? They obviously know the difference since the RAW for shock deployment states the unit, but there are no rules as written for the other three that state the unit.

your statements are purely a jump that the datasheet unit name is the same as the unit on the table top. Which is not true and can be proven by joining an IC unit from a different unit name datasheet [captain] to an assault squad unit from a different unit name datasheet[assault squad]

you now have an unit made of models, they benefit from unit rules.

Some of the models are space marines, some are sgt[or vet sgt] one is a captain model.

one of the models is from the datasheet with unit name:captain, some are from the datasheet with unit name: assault squad. They are all in one unit but they are not from the same place.

The IC is not part of the models from the assault squad datasheet, ever.

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

easysauce wrote:
literally, peopel like kaluwen's idea of "raw" is just so far off... by their definition,

Spell my name right.

if you cast enfeeble on a unit, and that unit contains an IC, the IC is not affected, cause hey, enfeeble only says it affects the whole unit, and special rules dont transfer onto ICs by default, even if the rule specifically states it affects the whole unit

Nope, that's covered by "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects".

Read page 166.

So if I join a chaos lord to a unit of renegades that's allowed to recycle from Master of the Horde, I get my chaos lord back?

Awesome.

Just drop kantor within range of the units - it will give them plus 20 attacks. Probably better than attaching an IC anyways.

 Spellbound wrote:
So if I join a chaos lord to a unit of renegades that's allowed to recycle from Master of the Horde, I get my chaos lord back?

Awesome.

Is it a model rule or unit rule that lets them come back? I'd have to see the wording.

But if the unit comes back then yes technically so( man I hate RAW half the time).


As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Confusing? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely! Is it RAW? Unfortunately.

We just need to make a houserule that changes units to x+ IC when joined and just specify that it only counts as 1unit for scoring, killpoints, etc.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

blaktoof wrote:you have made a RAI statement that a rule that affects the unit name of a datasheet affects an unit on the tabletop.

Actually, I'm saying that the unit the datasheet references is affected by the rules in the datasheet, since datasheets cannot do anything on the table, just units. Remember, the datasheet is just a reference, nothing more, and defines the unit.

From the Necron codex as to the definition of datasheets:
"Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."

It then defines what each section is. How the name is listed as the Unit Name, not the Datasheet Name. The Faction is the Unit's Faction. The Battlefield Role is the Unit's Battlefield Role. Notice a trend?

blaktoof wrote:The unit name of a datasheet has models which are bought from it, the unit on the table top can include models that are not from that datasheet unit name.

True enough. Remember, I'm not the one having a problem with this, you are.

blaktoof wrote:The rules never state the unit benefits, they state the assault squad.

And what is "assault squad"? Oh, right, the unit name of the unit in question.

blaktoof wrote:the IC is never part of the assault squad, the IC can be part of the assault squads unit on the table top.

So, is it never or on the tabletop?

Remember, this is not in dispute here. It's where you taking it.

blaktoof wrote:the rule does not grant anything at all to the assault squads unit, it grants something to the assault squad.

Really? Can you find the definition of what an "assault squad" is if not a unit? And one that can do everything the rule describes?

blaktoof wrote:Why do you think they are referencing the datasheet the models are bought from instead of saying the unit? They obviously know the difference since the RAW for shock deployment states the unit, but there are no rules as written for the other three that state the unit.

They don't. They reference the unit by name, which is on the top of the datasheet where the "Unit Name" is referenced. Remember, the datasheet is only a reference point, nothing else.

They reference each unit by name because some portions will be affecting two of the units in the Formation, and the other portions will be affecting the other two units in the Formation. Relentless means nothing to an assault squad, after all, and they wanted to limit the other rules from parts of the Formation.

blaktoof wrote:your statements are purely a jump that the datasheet unit name is the same as the unit on the table top. Which is not true and can be proven by joining an IC unit from a different unit name datasheet [captain] to an assault squad unit from a different unit name datasheet[assault squad]

Which is true because you cannot join datasheets.

So, I go back to "What is the name of the unit, if not the one listed on its datasheet"? You keep telling me that the unit name on the datasheet is not the unit's name, yet, I cannot find one single phrase to support this statement. In fact, the definition for it is literally: "3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

blaktoof wrote:you now have an unit made of models, they benefit from unit rules.

Some of the models are space marines, some are sgt[or vet sgt] one is a captain model.

one of the models is from the datasheet with unit name:captain, some are from the datasheet with unit name: assault squad. They are all in one unit but they are not from the same place.

The IC is not part of the models from the assault squad datasheet, ever.

Which is besides the point, since the Special Rules for the Formation target the units by name, and not datasheets. Datasheets are not used on the tabletop, except as reference material for the units.

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

People keep saying the word unit like the rules say it effects the entire unit and the word unit is never used for assault squad.

If I join an inqusitor to my solo ministorum priest and they form a unit. They do not magically become ministorum priest squad. They are a single unit comprised of a ministorum priest and an inqusitor.

If I take ghazkull and he joins a unit of stormboyz. It does not become a stormboyz squad. It is a single unit comprised of ghazkull and stormboyz. People are confusing the name of the models with the Word unit. They are not the same thing.

Furthermore the greyknight strike force was worded differently and did state the entire unit. This is why that ruling is correct.
As pointed out a dozen times with many examples you can't attach an independsnt character to a formstion and gain those special rules.

But like I said this is why I only play itc rules in my local club so I can avoid "TFG" who wants to cheat and to argue all day And so far the itc, nova and every major tournament are also saying you can't attach Charscters and gain these rules from this formation. It's really just the few posters here trying to twist rules into an argument.

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

USR....not the same discussion

 quickfuze wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

USR....not the same discussion

Please elaborate. In both situations a specific unit gets a bonus. In both situations an IC is joining the unit. So either in both situations the IC benefits from the bonus (note I did not say he has it, just benefits), or he does not benefit. So which is it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Yeup, that's what I said. The subject of each starting sentence is the unit, not the model. It gives qualifiers for what you of unit, true, but the focus is on the unit, not the model, see? By the way, you bolded the wrong part.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

Really, for all of those still arguing "Against" the charge, you have got to ask yourself:

When, during the game, do the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule?

When is a Specific Devastator Squad with attached IC suddenly awarded the Relentless Special Rule?


Upon that time of enlightenment in the eyes of the Emperor, that sacred Turn of arrival, who exactly gains "Relentless"? It is described in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule exactly who gets Relentless.
The lucky models in question are all part of that very Squad, even if they started the games as Independent Characters....

So the nay-sayers are still arguing the IC can deep-strike with the squad, but can't assault with it? The IC shouldn't even be able to deep strike on turn 1, by their logic.

They still seem to be confusing 'conferred' with 'benefit'.

You can benefit from a rule without being conferred it.

I highly doubt any tournament has made an FAQ ruling on this yet, but ITC in any case is a set of house rules you're free to play by, if you feel playing full-on 40k is a little too difficult for you to handle.
If you don't play normal 40k anyway why are you arguing the point so vehemently?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

I believe it's been stated but you are the TFG here. You bullied a player collectively and owe him an apology. Why so terrified of change?

Charistoph wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Yeup, that's what I said. The subject of each starting sentence is the unit, not the model. It gives qualifiers for what you of unit, true, but the focus is on the unit, not the model, see? By the way, you bolded the wrong part.

Go back and read 166.

Becoming part of the unit does not equate to you gaining the unit's special rules UNLESS THE RULE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT YOU GRANT THE RULE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A SINGLE MODEL WITH THE RULE.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

An IC that joined at any point "would not benefit", since it explicitly states that IC only benefit if it is from a Special Rule that grants it to the whole unit if a single model has it.

If it granted "Slow and Purposeful", then yes--the IC would benefit. But it grants Relentless, which doesn't extend to the whole unit by virtue of a single model having it.

BlackTalos wrote:
Really, for all of those still arguing "Against" the charge, you have got to ask yourself:

When, during the game, do the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule?

When is a Specific Devastator Squad with attached IC suddenly awarded the Relentless Special Rule?


Upon that time of enlightenment in the eyes of the Emperor, that sacred Turn of arrival, who exactly gains "Relentless"? It is described in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule exactly who gets Relentless.
The lucky models in question are all part of that very Squad, even if they started the games as Independent Characters....

Was the Independent Character taken as part of the Devastator Squad when you purchased the unit?
Was the Independent Character taken as part of the Assault Squad when you purchased the unit?

You can keep trying to play it off as your interpretation, but that's just it: your interpretation.

Relentless is a SPECIAL RULE and per the rules as written, it has to be permissive in order to be granted to ICs joining the unit. It does not grant to characters joining the unit, period. End of story.
The Assault Squad portion as well is a SPECIAL RULE intended for an ASSAULT SQUAD taken as part of the Formation. The IC is NOT part of the formation, whether they are joined to the Assault Squad or not.

I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

The IC is part of the Assault Squad when he joins it. You accept that he can join them for deepstrike, but not other things? Bizarro doublethink.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

The IC is part of the Assault Squad when he joins it. You accept that he can join them for deepstrike, but not other things? Bizarro doublethink.

Deep Strike is a USR not a Formation specific rule.

I think the point he was making is that some people are accepting the IC may arrive from Deep Strike on the first turn with the units in the formation, but may not charge.

i.e. they may benefit from the formation rule for one purpose but not the other...

.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My thoughts exactly. Dockeycavehammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread has the "It will not die" special rule.

 Byte wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My thoughts exactly. Dockeycavehammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread has the "It will not die" special rule.

I'm really not wanting to be rude, but to what end do you continue to post? People seem unable to separate what are effectively intellectual internet discussions on rules versus how things should be played in real life. We're arguing here on rules completely removed from actually playing a game, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting actual games should be halted indefintiely for each side to go around in circles trying to argue something better left to discussion beforehand and/or a D6 roll if absolutely necessary.

I would posit that the greatest amount of derailing that is happening in this thread is by people like you posting garbage about people actually posting for what this forum and thread are designed for as if they would necessarily try this on in the middle of the game. I can easily separate the two, so please, could you too, and maybe not post in a discussion which clearly you have issue with?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

And what unit is formed? What is it called? When the IC joins a unit their loses its own unit status and becomes part of the unit he is joining. In my example the Librarian joined the Chaplain so the Librarian loses his unit status and becomes part of the "chaplain" unit.

There is no "new" unit formed just ab additional model in the chaplain unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

Actually brotherhood of psykers does confer to ICs

Oh and Ill look in the brb for a citation when ai can. a little busy finishing up my AT with the Virginia Guard right now and none of my stuff is with me.

I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

 jokerkd wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

Actually brotherhood of psykers does confer to ICs

Nope! Read the statements in the unit entry on p159.
It's very specific to utilizing "models with the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers" special rules for the penalties and purposes of manifesting the psychic powers.

The unit itself is treated as a Psyker, not the IC. The IC gets treated as a Psyker for all intents and purposes(such as Culexus modifiers), but he can't manifest powers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

And what unit is formed? What is it called? When the IC joins a unit their loses its own unit status and becomes part of the unit he is joining. In my example the Librarian joined the Chaplain so the Librarian loses his unit status and becomes part of the "chaplain" unit.

There is no "new" unit formed just ab additional model in the chaplain unit.

It becomes a "unit" of characters...?

I'm not sure why you think the unit has to be named something simply because two models joined together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

Yes, the rules are pretty clear.

Unless the Special Rule is permissive--then it does not get granted. The Special Rule granting the ability to charge first turn is tied in to the Formation and it specifically grants it to Assault Squads, not Assault Squads and attached characters.

You could attach an IC to any of the squadrons in the formation, and equipment permitting on the IC, the IC could deep strike with the formation. However, that IC is going to prevent the formation from utilizing the Shock Deployment rule if this is done, as per the language in Shock Deployment. It states: "All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in deep strike reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this formation will arrive during your first or second turn."

Only the units in the Skyhammer formation are capable of deepstriking on turn one or two. The IC is not a unit in the Skyhammer Annihliation Force and therefore he cannot deploy in this manner and if he were to join a unit within the Skyhammer Annihilation Force he would prevent that unit from doing so since he cannot.

Additionally the IC is not characterized as a Devastator or Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force therefore he cannot benefit from First the Fire then the Blade or the other two special rules.

In these instances when it states 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' it is not units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force after things have been attached to them after deployment because the game is now started, it is, units that were purchased for that formation. This is the cause for divergence on this rule, this is where the language needs clarity. It is common sense however regardless of the clarity of language, why would rules stated within the formation refer to any other units than those solely within and purchased for the formation.

Never mind the poster above me stated the same thing.

He is correct no model in game can be part of a formation that it was not purchase for.

 dewd wrote:
You could attach an IC to any of the squadrons in the formation, and equipment permitting on the IC, the IC could deep strike with the formation. However, that IC is going to prevent the formation from utilizing the Shock Deployment rule if this is done, as per the language in Shock Deployment. It states: "All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in deep strike reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this formation will arrive during your first or second turn."

Only the units in the Skyhammer formation are capable of deepstriking on turn one or two. The IC is not a unit in the Skyhammer Annihliation Force and therefore he cannot deploy in this manner and if he were to join a unit within the Skyhammer Annihilation Force he would prevent that unit from doing so since he cannot.

Additionally the IC is not characterized as a Devastator or Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force therefore he cannot benefit from First the Fire then the Blade or the other two special rules.

In these instances when it states 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' it is not units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force after things have been attached to them after deployment because the game is now started, it is, units that were purchased for that formation. This is the cause for divergence on this rule, this is where the language needs clarity. It is common sense however regardless of the clarity of language, why would rules stated within the formation refer to any other units than those solely within and purchased for the formation.

this line of thought would only be true IF when the IC joined the unit, the unit became part of the IC's unit for all rules purposes.

However, the rules dont say we fold the unit into the IC, they say the IC folds into the unit

there is no rules preventing the IC from becoming part of the "assault marine squad" predeployment,

we have a special rule explicitly stated as affecting the unit, not just models with the rule, which does in fact "say otherwize" and lets the IC benifit from the rule due to being part of the "assault marine squad" unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Never mind the poster above me stated the same thing.

He is correct no model in game can be part of a formation that it was not purchase for.

which is incorrect according to the rules.

your above statement literally means that an IC cannot join that unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I honestly don't think this is a rules interpretation problem per se as the rules seem pretty clear; the antagonists seem more concerned with balance issues of attaching ICs that can charge first turn.

this x 10000


people feel its OP and unfair and that is the primary motivator for trying to find some way to call it illegal.

So the Nay-sayers cannot (or will not) answer my questions? Cool. If you've missed it - If an IC is attached to a Troop unit from a CAD and is the only model within 3" is the objective secured, or can any unit deny it?

Let me present two scenarios:

"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."

"First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

The first scenario, Stubborn, we accept the Independent Character counts as part of the unit and the effects of Stubborn apply to him as an attached Independent Character counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and indeed it states that it applies to the unit. It does not specify it applies to attached Independent Characters, but we accept it doesn't need to, because it says it applies to the unit if just one model in the unit has the rule.

What's different about the second scenario? We know we're able to join an Independent Character to either the Devastator or Assault Squad units and that any attached characters count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. We also know the rule states it applies to the unit. Oh, right, it doesn't say that only one model in the unit needs the rule for it to apply to the unit; it just says the rule applies to the unit.

Neither rule actually specifies it applies to attached characters, however both state they apply to the unit. The only difference between them is that Stubborn has a conditional that one model in the unit have the rule, while First the Fire, then the Blade simply provides the rule to the unit.

Why is accepted that the unit is inclusive of attached Independent Characters in the case of a rule like Stubborn, but the the unit is not inclusive of attached Independent Characters in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade?

 Happyjew wrote:
So the Nay-sayers cannot (or will not) answer my questions? Cool. If you've missed it - If an IC is attached to a Troop unit from a CAD and is the only model within 3" is the objective secured, or can any unit deny it?

You do realize it's worded differently? Not only does it specify the unit(something this formation fails to do), but It further clarifies that the entire unit is objective secured as long as it has this special rule.
"A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.”


Edit: you got to love how the person above me keeps adding and underlining the word unit to the second scenario when he rule never says the unit. As if him adding the word unit to his definition somehow magically makes it appear in the rule.

Thread needs to die or be locked.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

Why not, since that is how the company is doing it.

blaktoof wrote:
saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

Oho, you are so wrong on this last part is not funny. It's been repeatedly proven wrong so many times in this thread that you should repent and say 100 Hail Emperor's in penance.

But more seriously, while I have never stated nor inferred that the IC come from the "assault squad", but the rules DO state that "{w}hile an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes...".

So, yeah, he DOES count as part of "assault squad" when he joins the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

You are write, because the rules for the other three are not meant to affect all four units of the same. 2 of the units are affected by one rule alone, and only half of another. Same applies to the other units. Which units are affected? Why, they call them by name. What a concept!!!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Go back and read 166.

Becoming part of the unit does not equate to you gaining the unit's special rules UNLESS THE RULE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT YOU GRANT THE RULE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A SINGLE MODEL WITH THE RULE.

Okay, are you seriously trying to troll here? Page 166 says none of that.

And why should a Formation rule directed to affect an entire unit and carries zero Independent Characters and knows that at least one model in the unit will have the rule, have to make such an infantile stipulation?

It's not like an Independent Character from this formation is going to go flitting about allowing other models to charge after Charging, because there are none.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

An IC that joined at any point "would not benefit", since it explicitly states that IC only benefit if it is from a Special Rule that grants it to the whole unit if a single model has it.

Oooh, you were almost right, except the part where it requires only a single model to possess a rule to carry it to the whole unit. The whole unit is already referenced to get the affect, and the IC is part of the unit. Why should it specify one model, when there will already be 5 models in the unit possessing the rule?

This is an unwritten and unspecified restriction that you are requiring.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If it granted "Slow and Purposeful", then yes--the IC would benefit. But it grants Relentless, which doesn't extend to the whole unit by virtue of a single model having it.

It does because the squad receives it as a whole. Actually read the rule. Either the IC is part of the squad, or it is not. An IC is never just part of the unit.

So I just walked into my local GW and talk to the manager and according to him independent characters do not benefit from Formation special rules, according to him that would be really "unfair" to be exact. When I pressed him for an explanation he stated because the formations special rules are special rules and should be treated as such in regards to independent characters. the attempts to try and twist the vocabulary around to allow it are people trying to be way too technical. Now between random fans on the internet and an official GW rep I'm going to have to go with the official so independent characters do not benefit from special rules found in the formation. I have also written gw to clarify and will post when they reply.

 gmaleron wrote:
So I just walked into my local GW and talk to the manager and according to him independent characters do not benefit from Formation special rules, according to him that would be really "unfair" to be exact. When I pressed him for an explanation he stated because the formations special rules are special rules and should be treated as such in regards to independent characters. the attempts to try and twist the vocabulary around to allow it are people trying to be way too technical. Now between random fans on the internet and an official GW rep I'm going to have to go with the official so independent characters do not benefit from special rules found in the formation. I have also written gw to clarify and will post when they reply.

people will say "gw guy statement means nothing, me someone who does not work for gw and might buy their product however says.." no irony there

FWIW, a fairly major tournament faq (ITC) does not allow formation rules to benefit models outside of the formation, they included an errata in their faq that allows it for Rites of Teleportation and grey knights, but nothing for anything else. Although I do not think they should have changed the rules for anything, that is my opinion and I am not in the place to make those decisions with them or whatever. It's not the only rule they changed, unrelated to this issue they changed FMC to be immune to blasts/templates as is worded for flyers, despite it not being stated for FMC...but these are house rules. Bottom line, a major tournament house ruled one rule that affects units from formations to allow it to include models joined to the units that are not from that formation- but no other formation/detachment received the same treatment. They have ruled at their events in the case of other formations that attached ICs do not benefit from rules that specify it affects "units in this formation" instead of just "units" as there is a distinction there.

in the case of these rules 3 of them do not even specify units. or units in this formation.

If it works for Rites of Teleportation it will work for this formation too.

Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

While your local gw manager might be a reasonable guy who understands rules and fairness, a lot of us cringe at anecdotes like that because ours are notorious for ruling based on who spends the most money and rarely consider the ramifications of their judgments. Hence the forum tenets asking they not be considered.

Hiwpi i probably wouldn't do it. But these threads are a discussion of the rules, not just opinions

Regarding the ICs and Ob Sec rule....

"All Troops units in this detachment..." ICs are not troops units nor in the detachment therefor by the 'against' camp logic, attached ICs from a different detachment do not count as Ob Sec when they are in a unit of Troops in a CAD or Allied Detachment.

This is what you get if you think ICs can't benefit from being in units from Skyhammer.

AlexRae wrote:
Regarding the ICs and Ob Sec rule....
"All Troops units in this detachment..." ICs are not troops units nor in the detachment therefor by the 'against' camp logic, attached ICs from a different detachment do not count as Ob Sec when they are in a unit of Troops in a CAD or Allied Detachment.
This is what you get if you think ICs can't benefit from being in units from Skyhammer.

IC's don't have Objective Secured to begin with regardless of what detachment they are in so it does not matter. The only time it matters is if there is a rule that specifically states that they do get Objective Secured. An IC can join a unit from a Formation he just doesn't benefit from their Special Rules which is clearly stated on page 166 of the Warhammer 40k rulebook. I understand where the interpretations come from but the fact they are labeled as "Special Rules" means you look at the Special Rules entry on the Independent Characters profile in the Rulebook.

 gmaleron wrote:
Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

I note you've neglected to attempt to resolve my last post.

Why is a rule that is granted to a unit also granted to attached Independent Characters if at least one model in the original unit is required to have it, while a rule that is simply granted to a unit not also granted to attached Independent Characters?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Even if it just specifies units they still are part of the Formations Army List Entry which is pretty clear that only units listed there benefit from the Formation Special Rules. And that's what always seems to be ignored, the fact they are labeled under Special Rules means you would look up Special Rules under Independent Characters. Of course I appreciate a mature response, my arguments earlier today resorted with opponents immaturely name calling and attempting to insult my intelligence because I disagreed with them so thank you.

I note you've neglected to attempt to resolve my last post.

Why is a rule that is granted to a unit also granted to attached Independent Characters if at least one model in the original unit is required to have it, while a rule that is simply granted to a unit not also granted to attached Independent Characters?

I didn't bother going back a few pages due to the negative nature of several peoples attitudes and plain immaturity when it came to someone not agreeing with their opinion. If you are willing to act maturely and discuss this rather then throw out insults ill be more then happy to participate.

The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So in the case of "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule in the Skyhammer Assault Formation does it specifically say that it carries over to Independent Characters joining the unit yes or no? In the case of the Devastator Squads does it specifically state that Independent Characters gain the Relentless Special Rule yes or no? In the case of the Assault Marines does it specifically state that they can charge after arriving from Deep Strike yes or no? In the case of all three of these parts of the rule the answer is NO, therefore an IC cannot benefit from them.

 gmaleron wrote:
The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So despite Stubborn being given as an example by the rules you're referring to, Stubborn is not conferred to an attached Independent Character because Stubborn doesn't specify it's conferred to attached Independent Characters?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
The only time a Special Rule that a unit has is conferred to an IC is if the rule in question specifically states that it can be conferred to IC's that join the unit as made clear on page 166 in the rulebook. Its not granted to them if they come with it as in the case of a Formation thanks to them being part of the Formations Army List Entry they automatically come with it as it is not a Psychic Power, its a rule attached to them from the beginning of the game.

So despite Stubborn being given as an example by the rules you're referring to, Stubborn is not conferred to an attached Independent Character because Stubborn doesn't specify it's conferred to attached Independent Characters?

Stubborn is though as it is explained in the Stubborn Special Rules Profile:

Stubborn: Page 172 of the Warhammer 40k Rulebook:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this Special Rule take Morale Checks or Pinning tests they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is bother Fearless and Stubborn it uses the rules for Fearless instead"

The fact that it says a single model in the unit means that everyone that joins that unit including IC's benefit from it, this is a case of where the rule Specifically States that anyone can benefit from it. All that is needed is a single model, meaning it could be someone in the unit itself or in the case of an Independent Character, someone joining the unit.

Stubborn can be broken down into two basic parts:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes..."

The italicised portion is the effect conferred, and the target of that effect. The underlined portion is the condition required for that effect to be conferred.

You're mistaking the condition required as defining who it applies to which is incorrect, and is resulting in you trying to claim when both rules refer to "the unit" one of them means one thing and the other means another.

That's simply inconsistent, and not in the rules. Either both refer to "the unit" as including attached Independent Characters or both refer to the unit not including attached Independent Characters.

As a result, given that Stubborn is explicitly pointed to as an instance where a unit's rules are applied to the attached Independent Character we must therefore take it that they're referring to unit-applied effects (i.e. those which refer to a or the unit) versus effects which members of a unit have but which are applied on a model basis.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Stubborn can be broken down into two basic parts:
"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes..."

The italicised portion is the effect conferred, and the target of that effect. The underlined portion is the condition required for that effect to be conferred.

You're mistaking the condition required as defining who it applies to which is incorrect, and is resulting in you trying to claim when both rules refer to "the unit" one of them means one thing and the other means another.

That's simply inconsistent, and not in the rules. Either both refer to "the unit" as including attached Independent Characters or both refer to the unit not including attached Independent Characters

I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

 gmaleron wrote:
I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

You're not arguing the point at all; I'm pointing out that you're being inconsistent in what you define as the unit. With Stubborn and First the Fire, then the Blade, we've got two instances:

- Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.
- Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.

Neither specifies anything about attached Independent Characters, but you're claiming that Stubborn defines the unit as including attached Independent Characters because at least one model in the unit has the rule (but not necessarily the attached Independent Character), while in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade the unit isn't allowed to include attached Independent Characters because... inconsistency?

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

Um, that's irrelevant because we're not talking about an attached Independent Character granting a unit its rules; we're talking about a unit granting an attached Independent Character its rules.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
I hate to break it to you man but that is RAW from the Rulebook and the only time the "takes" portion comes into question is when they suffer a Morale or Pinning Check and no they refer to the same thing. Its simple, only a single model that is either attached to a unit or already part of a unit that comes with the Stubborn Special Rule is all that is needed for the above to take effect. They are one and the same, not different. It is labeled as a model on purpose so it could literally be any character or part of any unit, it does not in this case have to specifically state an Independent Character or a Unit.

You're not arguing the point at all; I'm pointing out that you're being inconsistent in what you define as the unit. With Stubborn and First the Fire, then the Blade, we've got two instances:
- Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.
- Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.
Neither specifies anything about attached Independent Characters, but you're claiming that Stubborn defines the unit as including attached Independent Characters because at least one model in the unit has the rule (but not necessarily the attached Independent Character), while in the case of First the Fire, then the Blade the unit isn't allowed to include attached Independent Characters because... inconsistency?

And that is not true because it may not be Unit applied effects, it could be the Independent Character that has Stubborn rather then the units because of how the rule is written and because the Independent Character has Stubborn he gives it to the unit because any model with the Stubborn Special effects the entire unit.

Um, that's irrelevant because we're not talking about an attached Independent Character granting a unit its rules; we're talking about a unit granting an attached Independent Character its rules.

I am arguing the point quite clearly thank you, and I am not being inconsistent especially since I am quoting straight from the Rulebook in both cases which maybe a fault of GW writing more then anything However to answer your points:

-Rule being conferred to the unit because at least one model in the unit has the special rule.

This does not specify the Independent Character because it does not have to, in this case it could either be the Unit itself or the Independent Character granting the Stubborn rule.

-Rule being conferred to the unit because it's a formation special rule.

There is nothing that exists as a "Formation Special Rule" in the Rulebook, you only have "Special Rules". Because they are Special Rules that happen to be from a Formation, does not change the fact they are just Special Rules, there is not another kind of them. Looking at what is written under Special Rules in regards to Independent Characters on page 166 in the Rulebook. It quite clearly says the "Special Rule" needs to as RAW in the Rulebook: "Unless Specified (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character."
In the case of Stubborn you are trying to argue it is referring to it in the case if the unit has the Stubborn Special rule and a Character joins it, because all that is needed is a model to give everyone in and attached to the unit Stubborn is why its used as an example. Is there anything in the Formation that Specifies that an Independent Character or even a model outside of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule can be given the Devastator Squads or Assault Squads Special Rules? Yes or No?

 gmaleron wrote:
This does not specify the Independent Character because it does not have to, in this case it could either be the Unit itself or the Independent Character granting the Stubborn rule.

We are already making the assumption that it is at least one model of the unit that has the Stubborn rule, and not the attached Independent Character, because otherwise it would be no kind of parallel to this discussion.

Regardless, why does it not have to specify an attached Independent Character? The only possibility is because it refers to the unit and we're entitled to assume it includes attached Independent Characters?

There is nothing that exists as a "Formation Special Rule" in the Rulebook, you only have "Special Rules". Because they are Special Rules that happen to be from a Formation, does not change the fact they are just Special Rules, there is not another kind of them. Looking at what is written under Special Rules in regards to Independent Characters on page 166 in the Rulebook. It quite clearly says the "Special Rule" needs to as RAW in the Rulebook: "Unless Specified (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character."

You're trying to shift the goalposts into somewhere irrelevant. It's obvious I meant that it is a special rule conferred to the unit by being in a formation. But why in this case are we entitled to assume the unit does not include an attached Independent Character, when clearly you're agreeing we can make the assumption for a rule like Stubborn. That's the inconsistency.

In the case of Stubborn you are trying to argue it is referring to it in the case if the unit has the Stubborn Special rule and a Character joins it, because all that is needed is a model to give everyone in and attached to the unit Stubborn is why its used as an example. Is there anything in the Formation that Specifies that an Independent Character or even a model outside of the "First the Fire then the Blade" Special Rule can be given the Devastator Squads or Assault Squads Special Rules? Yes or No?

By that logic every special rule would be required to explicitly state whether or not it applied to attached Independent Characters (including Stubborn, which does not, despite being the poster-child for conferring), and we would have no entitlement to assume that, as the rules for Independent Characters state, attached Independent Characters are considered to be part of the unit for all rules purposes.

The unit does not contain an Independent Character because it is not listed in the Army List entry portion of the Formation. And in the case of Stubborn it does not have to specify an attached Independent Character because all it has to be is a model. Yes Independent Characters are part of the unit for all rule purposes until you read the Special Rules segment listed under Independent Characters. That clearly states that unless the Special Rule in question clearly states that it confers to Independent Characters outside the unit they do not receive that Special Rule. Therefore since "First the Fire then the Blade" does not specifically state that models or IC's outside the unit, he is not able to benefit from it. Not all rules have to be specific but in regards to Special Rules and Independent Characters the have to be because its in there rules profile.

If I cast Prescience on an Assault Squad with an attached IC, does the IC benefit from Prescience?

AlexRae wrote:
If I cast Prescience on an Assault Squad with an attached IC, does the IC benefit from Prescience?

That's not the same thing as a Special Rule; which is what this Formation grants.

"Prescience" grants an Effect, not a Special Rule.

AlexRae wrote:
If I cast Prescience on an Assault Squad with an attached IC, does the IC benefit from Prescience?

That is a Psychic Power not a Special Rule. Do Independent Characters have a anything in their profile regarding Psychic Powers? No they do not. Do Independent Characters have something written in their profile in the Rulebook in regards to Special Rules? Yes they do.

 gmaleron wrote:
The unit does not contain an Independent Character because it is not listed in the Army List entry portion of the Formation.

So? A rule can affect an IC joined to the unit, provided it is worded properly.

 gmaleron wrote:
And in the case of Stubborn it does not have to specify an attached Independent Character because all it has to be is a model.

No, there has to be a unit with a model. Nowhere in the IC rule does it state that Stubborn's same condition for the unit applies in every situation.

We see the same situation with the Space Marine Narthecium. It grants Feel No Pain to all models in the unit. It does not specifically state that one model must possess Feel No Pain to affect the unit, yet, ICs that join a unit with an Apothecary, are still considered to have that FNP granted to them.

The reason the Skyhammer rules do not state "a unit with one model with this rule" is because there are already 4 units, each with 5 models. It is nonsensical to require models carrying the rule when you have units full of models already doing so. So, instead, it just states either unit, generically, or by name (assault squad/devastator squad).

 gmaleron wrote:
Yes Independent Characters are part of the unit for all rule purposes until you read the Special Rules segment listed under Independent Characters. That clearly states that unless the Special Rule in question clearly states that it confers to Independent Characters outside the unit they do not receive that Special Rule. Therefore since "First the Fire then the Blade" does not specifically state that models or IC's outside the unit, he is not able to benefit from it. Not all rules have to be specific but in regards to Special Rules and Independent Characters the have to be because its in there rules profile.

As has been pointed out, there is as much specifically stated in any of the Formations special rules affecting an IC in one of its units as there is for Stubborn to. The only difference is that you are tying yourself to an extended definition that is not explicitly stated as the required condition. Especially when other situations also call for the same thing, but handle the phrasing differently and not related to it.

AlexRae wrote:
If it works for Rites of Teleportation it will work for this formation too.

The Rites of Teleportation was specifically listed as a Command Benefit in the GK Codex, and not a Special Rule. Conversely, the SAF has FTFTTB and all the others listed specifically as Special Rules.

 gmaleron wrote:
The unit does not contain an Independent Character because it is not listed in the Army List entry portion of the Formation.

And see, you change the subject again and avoid my point because you seemingly cannot answer it. The unit absolutely contains an Independent Character if I join it to the unit when deploying.

And in the case of Stubborn it does not have to specify an attached Independent Character because all it has to be is a model.

Stubborn applies to units, not models - if at least one model in the unit has the rule. Why does the unit include an attached Independent Character here, but not when the unit is given the rule as part of its formation bonuses?

Yes Independent Characters are part of the unit for all rule purposes until you read the Special Rules segment listed under Independent Characters. That clearly states that unless the Special Rule in question clearly states that it confers to Independent Characters outside the unit they do not receive that Special Rule. Therefore since "First the Fire then the Blade" does not specifically state that models or IC's outside the unit, he is not able to benefit from it. Not all rules have to be specific but in regards to Special Rules and Independent Characters the have to be because its in there rules profile.

You've still not shown me where even Stubborn explicitly states it confers to attached Independent Characters. The fact is that it doesn't, unless what it means is that when a rule says the unit it means attached Independent Characters, because attached Independent Characters count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

"First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

Neither rule actually specifies it applies to attached characters, however both state they apply to the unit. The only difference between them is that Stubborn has a conditional that one model in the unit have the rule, while First the Fire, then the Blade simply provides the rule to the unit.

You are citing the language of the rules in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force wrong, it does not state unit(s) it states 'Devastator/ Assault Squads in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' (or 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', so it is only referring to only units within the formation). It specifically says that, you have to follow that you don't get to supplant that with unit(s) because it suits your interpretation. You are wrong. 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' is absolutely not interchangeable with the generic term 'unit', it is extremely specific and has to be treated as such. It excludes characters because it states what it specifically effects which is the specific entry 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' not the unit.

This is absolute and clear, just read it and quit supplanting the words with other words that seem to fit. They are rules and the language is specific and it is intended to be treated as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

this line of thought would only be true IF when the IC joined the unit, the unit became part of the IC's unit for all rules purposes.
However, the rules dont say we fold the unit into the IC, they say the IC folds into the unit
there is no rules preventing the IC from becoming part of the "assault marine squad" predeployment,
we have a special rule explicitly stated as affecting the unit, not just models with the rule, which does in fact "say otherwize" and lets the IC benifit from the rule due to being part of the "assault marine squad" unit

Of course the IC can join the unit, but the IC cannot become a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' or a 'Unit in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' therefore it cannot benefit from the rules.

 dewd wrote:
You are citing the language of the rules in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force wrong, it does not state unit(s) it states 'Devastator/ Assault Squads in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' (or 'units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', so it is only referring to only units within the formation). It specifically says that, you have to follow that you don't get to supplant that with unit(s) because it suits your interpretation. You are wrong. 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' is absolutely not interchangeable with the generic term 'unit', it is extremely specific and has to be treated as such. It excludes characters because it states what it specifically effects which is the specific entry 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' not the unit.

This is absolute and clear, just read it and quit supplanting the words with other words that seem to fit. They are rules and the language is specific and it is intended to be treated as such.

And an Independent Character joined to an Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihiliation Force counts as part of an Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihiliation Force for all rules purposes. The rules tell us this, absolutely and clearly by simple equivalence:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

Rites of Teleportation is no different to Ob Sec in that they are special rules conferred via a Detachment.

Secondly, let me rephrase my Prescience question with another power....if I cast a psychic power on an Assault Squad with an attached IC that grants a unit let's say Rage.... does the IC get Rage also? Rage is a special rule.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

And an Independent Character joined to an Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihiliation Force counts as part of an Assault Squad from the Skyhammer Annihiliation Force for all rules purposes. The rules tell us this, absolutely and clearly by simple equivalence:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

You're still twisting it, the IC never became a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' or a 'Unit in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' he joined them. He did not become them and only joined them, the rules states that it only effects 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' therefore he cannot benefit. There is no counting as a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' you either are or you are not.

If joined he is absolutely a part of the unit but 'a unit' is not a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force'. There is no count as.

 dewd wrote:
You're still twisting it, the IC never became a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' or a 'Unit in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' he joined them. He did not become them and only joined them, the rules states that it only effects 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' therefore he cannot benefit. There is no counting as a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' you either are or you are not.

So you're saying that when the rules explicitly say:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

It actually means:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he doesn't count as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and is only joined to the unit..."

If joined he is absolutely a part of the unit but 'a unit' is not a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force'. There is no count as.

The rules disagree. "This is absolute and clear, just read it and quit supplanting the words with other words that seem to fit."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

So you're saying that when the rules explicitly say:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

It actually means:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he doesn't count as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and is only joined to the unit..."

Yes he counts as a part of that unit, but he does not count as being a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force'. A 'unit' is an indiscriminate collection of models or a model from one or multiple entries, a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' is a very specific entry.

 dewd wrote:
Yes he counts as a part of that unit, but he does not count as being a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force'. A 'unit' is an indiscriminate collection of models or a model from one or multiple entries, a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' is a very specific entry.

I thought you said there was no counts as? Which is it? I'm actually having trouble taking you seriously given that I was able to use your own facetious and incorrect statement to me correctly in reply to you.

If Assault Squad A is part of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, and I join a Librarian with Jump Pack to Assault Squad A, which unit does the Librarian count as part of for all rules purposes?

Assault Squad A.

Is Assault Squad A's "membership" of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force a rules purpose for which the Librarian can count as part of? To say otherwise would say that the Skyhammer Annihilation Force and its rules is... not rules?


You simply cannot say he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes and then deny him counting as part of that unit for some rules purposes. That argument simply does not work. Absolutely and clearly, you could say.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


I thought you said there was no counts as? Which is it? I'm actually having trouble taking you seriously given that I was able to use your own facetious and incorrect statement to me correctly in reply to you.

If Assault Squad A is part of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, and I join a Librarian with Jump Pack to Assault Squad A, which unit does the Librarian count as part of for all rules purposes?

Assault Squad A.

Is Assault Squad A's "membership" of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force a rules purpose for which the Librarian can count as part of? To say otherwise would say that the Skyhammer Annihilation Force and its rules is... not rules?

You simply cannot say he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes and then deny him counting as part of that unit for some rules purposes. That argument simply does not work. Absolutely and clearly, you could say.

Yes he is a part of the unit and he counts as being a part of the unit, but the IC is whatever it is in its data entry and the rules only effect 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the two entries become 'a unit' but they are comprised of an 'IC entry' and a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the rules only effect the 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' not the 'unit'. There is even built in redundancy of IC's not obtaining special rules, but that doesn't even need to be cited due to the language in the formation rules.

Also i'm done here you used facetiously completely incorrect just to throw in a 'big' word to seem smart. Edited by Manchu

 dewd wrote:
Yes he is a part of the unit and he counts as being a part of the unit, but the IC is whatever it is in its data entry and the rules only effect 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the two entries become 'a unit' but the are comprised of an 'IC entry' and a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the rules only effect the 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' not the 'unit'. There is even built in redundancy of IC's not obtaining special rules, but that doesn't even need to be cited due to the language in the formation rules.

All you're saying is that "counts as for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of for some rules purposes but not others".

If an attached Independent Character joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force he counts as part of that Assault Squad for all rules purposes. What you're saying is that the formation's special rules which are applied to that unit, at the unit level (so therefore include all members of the unit, which the attached Independent Character counts as, as we know) somehow do not include a model within that unit despite it counting as part of that unit for all rules purposes.

It's ludicrously disingenuous to say that. You're saying the rules mean something completely different to what they very simply and clearly say.

Also i'm done here you used facetiously completely incorrect just to throw in a 'big' word to seem smart, you're an idiot.

Now you're simply running away while attacking the person rather than their argument. I'm sorry if you don't consider 'facetious' a synonym to 'flippant' but the dictionary/thesaurus will disagree with you, much like the rules. I'm not going to attack you; I'll simply say it's apparent that you're unable to answer the point and therefore must call names instead. Disappointing, but oh well.

Folks, please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Stick to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks!

 dewd wrote:
Yes he is a part of the unit and he counts as being a part of the unit, but the IC is whatever it is in its data entry and the rules only effect 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the two entries become 'a unit' but they are comprised of an 'IC entry' and a 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force', the rules only effect the 'Devastator/ Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force' not the 'unit'. There is even built in redundancy of IC's not obtaining special rules, but that doesn't even need to be cited due to the language in the formation rules.

So, by your definition, an assault squad is only an assault squad when completely on its own, correct?

So, a rule can refer to a unit generically, it will work for the unit and IC both. But when a rule specifies a unit by name, and the IC is part of that unit, it no longer counts?

Can I get a rules quote on that one, please?

Also, can I get a rules quote on where it says when a unit is joined by an IC it stops being referred to by that name?

Blacktoof hasn't addressed it yet, he just makes declarations he will not reference. Have you found this?

Also, there is a difference between units having special rules as part of their data slate which do not confer to any attached characters and special rules which are subsequently conferred to the unit from outside sources such as psychic powers, command benefits, terrain etcetera. Distinctly different situations.

AlexRae wrote:
Also, there is a difference between units having special rules as part of their data slate which do not confer to any attached characters and special rules which are subsequently conferred to the unit from outside sources such as psychic powers, command benefits, terrain etcetera. Distinctly different situations.

There are but this is not one of those situations, the assault squads and devastators squads clearly get this rule from the formation and it is clearly listed under special rules. The fact that independent characters cannot take special rules from a unit unless it is specifically stated negates any chance of him getting those special rules. I really find it funny that the fact that is listed as a special rule is continuously ignored, that alone makes it so independent characters cannot use the rules found in the formation.

 gmaleron wrote:
[There are but this is not one of those situations, the assault squads and devastators squads clearly get this rule from the formation and it is clearly listed under special rules. The fact that independent characters cannot take special rules from a unit unless it is specifically stated negates any chance of him getting those special rules. I really find it funny that the fact that is listed as a special rule is continuously ignored, that alone makes it so independent characters cannot use the rules found in the formation.

You've yet to explain why the unit means "unit and any attached Independent Characters" for a rule like Stubborn while the unit means "the unit but not any attached Independent Characters" for something like First the Fire, then the Blade.

As it is, you've gone back to repeating your position without actually supporting it with meaningful rules.

I'm afraid you have it the other way around, I've consistently referenced the rule book and actual rules during the entire debate. It is you who have been making up and twisting words around to suit your needs, in the case of the sky hammer assault formation it clearly states devestator squads and assault squads benefit from Special Rulees.

And you have also just lied, I have stated several times that because stubborn says "any model" it does not have to specifically state independent character or unit because any model that has it benefits the entire unit. The fact that the devastators and assault marines get their benefit from First Fire Then The Blade SPECIAL RULE means it is a special rule, there is no other way to interpret it. And unlike stubborn it doesn't specifically say that one model in the unit affects the entire unit.

Before you try and attempt to again pick apart my defense let me ask you this. Does anywhere in the "First Fire Then The Blade" special rules say that independent characters or any model benefit from it? Yes or no.

Yes, because the IC is a part of the Assault or Devastator Squad for all rules purposes.

You've also consistency claimed that we're "twisting" the rules to fit our own agenda. I asked you to stop attributing malice to people that disagree with you on page 8, but I'm going to repeat myself, seeing as you're complaining about the conduct of other posters: stop attributing malicious intent to people that disagree with you.

Same question for Mr. Shine and gmaleron. I'd really like to get each of your takes on this:


Do unit level special rules work on a model by model basis, only on the unit as a whole or some other way?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Yes, because the IC is a part of the Assault or Devastator Squad for all rules purposes.
You've also consistency claimed that we're "twisting" the rules to fit our own agenda. I asked you to stop attributing malice to people that disagree with you on page 8, but I'm going to repeat myself, seeing as you're complaining about the conduct of other posters: stop attributing malicious intent to people that disagree with you.

I have done no such thing to the degree you're making it out to be and in fact it is been multiple individuals ganging up on me because I disagree with them, stop exaggerating things to try and counter my argument, assaulting my character instead of the issue very mature.The fact that you are blatantly ignoring negative behavior and focus only on mine proves how biased your statement and stance is.

And yes independent characters do get benefits of the units for all rules purposes except when you read special rules as listed on independent characters profile on page 166 of the rulebook. There it clearly states that independent characters have to deal with special rules differently from the rest of the units rules. Reading part of the independent character entry to make your argument is not the way to go about it.

Again I will ask the question, does it say anywhere in the Formation's Special Rules, specifically say that any model or independent character may benefit from the Formation's special rules outside of the unit they have listed there? Yes or no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Yes, because the IC is a part of the Assault or Devastator Squad for all rules purposes.

You've also consistency claimed that we're "twisting" the rules to fit our own agenda. I asked you to stop attributing malice to people that disagree with you on page 8, but I'm going to repeat myself, seeing as you're complaining about the conduct of other posters: stop attributing malicious intent to people that disagree with you.

You being serious? Gmaleron has been quite tame compared to some of the people posting on here. Get off your high horse and if you're going to lecture on malice and personal attacks you need to do it to all parties not just one.

I agree with GM, its a special rule and independent characters have to treat special rules differently. It's quite clear in the rule book so I don't understand why there's even a debate, it's why all the major national tournaments dont allow it. That and even the GW that I frequent Manager says the same thing, I will take an official representative of GW over a random internet individual anyday.

 gmaleron wrote:
And you have also just lied, I have stated several times that because stubborn says "any model" it does not have to specifically state independent character or unit because any model that has it benefits the entire unit. The fact that the devastators and assault marines get their benefit from First Fire Then The Blade SPECIAL RULE means it is a special rule, there is no other way to interpret it. And unlike stubborn it doesn't specifically say that one model in the unit affects the entire unit.

Stubborn doesn't say "any model"; it says "at least one model. This is irrelevant however, because the rule for Stubborn can be broken down into two parts: a condition upon which the rule is conferred and the target to which it is conferred. The condition in the case of Stubborn is that at least one model in the unit have the rule, but we're arguing about who the rule is conferred to, i.e. the target AFTER the condition is met.

The condition for Stubborn is that at least one model in the unit have the rule. The condition for First the Fire, then the Blade is being a Devastator Squad or Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force.

The point that is actually at issue is whether attached Independent Characters are an eligible target of the rule being conferred. That is why you are being inconsistent - you are claiming that the target of each rule, which is the same for both ("the unit") means two different things because the conditions are different, and yet the conditions place no such limitation.

Before you try and attempt to again pick apart my defense let me ask you this. Does anywhere in the "First Fire Then The Blade" special rules say that independent characters or any model benefit from it? Yes or no.

It says "the Assault Squad" (i.e. "the unit" the Independent Character has joined and counts as a part of for all rules purposes) in the exact same way as Stubborn says "they" (referring to "the unit" earlier in the sentence).

Drager wrote:
Same question for Mr. Shine and gmaleron. I'd really like to get each of your takes on this:

Do unit level special rules work on a model by model basis, only on the unit as a whole or some other way?

If it's simply stated as applying to "the unit" then all members of the unit gain the benefit, I would think. Do you have a specific example in mind?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

It says "the Assault Squad" (i.e. "the unit" the Independent Character has joined and counts as a part of for all rules purposes) in the exact same way as Stubborn says "they" (referring to "the unit" earlier in the sentence).

It does not say the exact same way that stubborn does, one word does not make up the entirety of the rule. you keep saying the same thing over and over again that ICs count as part of the unit for all rules purposes and then you continue to ignore what it says about independent characters when dealing with special rules found in a unit. Clearly IC have to deal with special rules differently than they do other rules found in the unit otherwise they would not have a section of their rules dedicated to it, you need to address the entire thing to make your argument valid.

 gmaleron wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

It says "the Assault Squad" (i.e. "the unit" the Independent Character has joined and counts as a part of for all rules purposes) in the exact same way as Stubborn says "they" (referring to "the unit" earlier in the sentence).

It does not say the exact same way that stubborn does, one word does not make up the entirety of the rule. you keep saying the same thing over and over again that ICs count as part of the unit for all rules purposes and then you continue to ignore what it says about independent characters when dealing with special rules found in a unit. Clearly IC have to deal with special rules differently than they do other rules found in the unit otherwise they would not have a section of their rules dedicated to it, you need to address the entire thing to make your argument valid.

I've been addressing the entire thing the whole time; you're simply conveniently ignoring my points, refusing to quote them and provide answers to them specifically. You're just waving aside entire chunks of reasoning and writing it off with the repetition of, "but it says at least one model in the squad".

You're confusing what grants the rule with who is eligible for its benefit. "The unit" is the recipient of the benefit for both rules; it's simply inconsistent to claim that "the unit" necessarily means two different things just because the conditions are different..

I am not confusing anything and I am not trying or even ignoring anything you have stated. If I'm doing that then you are doing the exact same thing on top of conveniently ignoring the entirety of the rules that are listed, saying "they" is not the entirety. I'm not confusing anything, it clearly states that special rules in regards to independent characters need to specifically say they can be conferred to them, if they don't then they don't get it.

Stubborn: Page 172 of the Warhammer 40k Rulebook:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this Special Rule take Morale Checks or Pinning tests they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is bother Fearless and Stubborn it uses the rules for Fearless instead"

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

Now looking at both the special rules they are not similar in the slightest in regards to how they effect a unit so I fail to see what point you're trying to make if any.

gmaleron, the only rule I've seen you reference, is unit special rules don't confer.

If an IC joins an Assault Squad, is it still an Assault Squad? If not please cite a rule.
If an Assault Squad has permission to do something, does an IC joining that unit restrict that permission (not including outside restrictions such as having to be able to Deep Strike)? If so please cite a rule.

 gmaleron wrote:
I am not confusing anything and I am not trying or even ignoring anything you have stated. If I'm doing that then you are doing the exact same thing on top of conveniently ignoring the entirety of the rules that are listed, saying "they" is not the entirety. I'm not confusing anything, it clearly states that special rules in regards to independent characters need to specifically say they can be conferred to them, if they don't then they don't get it.

Stubborn: Page 172 of the Warhammer 40k Rulebook:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this Special Rule take Morale Checks or Pinning tests they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is bother Fearless and Stubborn it uses the rules for Fearless instead"

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

Now looking at both the special rules they are not similar in the slightest in regards to how they effect a unit so I fail to see what point you're trying to make if any.

Would you agree that, eliminating the portion of First the Fire, then the Blade that refers to Devastator Squads (as we're dealing with Assault Squads here), the rule reads:

"On the turn Assault Squads from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arrive from Deep Strike Reserves they can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

?

It would be an assault squad with an independent character attached. And if the independent character does not have that Special Rule or if the Special Rule does not specifically state that it confers to independent characters that join the unit then no he would not get it.

Page 166 of the Rulebook under Independent Characters:

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special Rules are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."

Believe me I understand what you're trying to point out in regards to the Assault Squad, however the fact is First Fire Then The Blade is still listed as a Special Rule. Because it's listed as a special rule independent characters have to follow the guidelines with special rules as found on page 166 in the rulebook. how it is worded does not change the fact that it is a special rule, and according to my GW manager its probably why they listed it as a special rule to force independent characters to cite the special rules reference in their rules.

Who said anything about the rule conferring?

 gmaleron wrote:
It would be an assault squad with an independent character attached. And if the independent character does not have that Special Rule or if the Special Rule does not specifically state that it confers to independent characters that join the unit then no he would not get it

Believe me I understand what you're trying to point out in regards to the Assault Squad, however the fact is First Fire Then The Blade is still listed as a Special Rule. Because it's listed as a special rule independent characters have to follow the guidelines with special rules as found on page 166 in the rulebook. how it is worded does not change the fact that it is a special rule, and according to my GW manager its probably why they listed it as a special rule to force independent characters to cite the special rules reference in their rules.

I'm talking about the wording of the rule itself, regardless of whether or not an Independent Character is attached. If we eliminate the bit that's irrelevant, can we effectively stitch the rule back together to read as I've stated, yes or no?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

I'm talking about the wording of the rule itself, regardless of whether or not an Independent Character is attached. If we eliminate the bit that's irrelevant, can we effectively stitch the rule back together to read as I've stated, yes or no?

Yes we can read it as you have stitched it back together and I can see how that part is worded could make sense in the way you're describing. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still a special rule and independent characters still have to deal with special rules as described on page 166. It doesn't change the fact that it's not specified in the rule itself so it can't transfer over to the independent character so he still could not assault with the Assault Marines, and really doesn't surprise me that GW worded something poorly!

 gmaleron wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

I'm talking about the wording of the rule itself, regardless of whether or not an Independent Character is attached. If we eliminate the bit that's irrelevant, can we effectively stitch the rule back together to read as I've stated, yes or no?

Yes we can read it as you have stitched it back together and I can see how that part is worded could make sense in the way you're describing. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still a special rule and independent characters still have to deal with special rules as described on page 166. It doesn't change the fact that the special rule doesn't specifically confer over to the independent character so he still could not assault with the Assault Marines, and really doesn't surprise me that GW worded something poorly!

Okay, let's colour it in, compared with the rules for 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."

"On the turn Assault Squads from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arrive from Deep Strike Reserves they can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

You'll notice that they're structurally exactly the same. Red denotes the condition for the rule being conferred, green denotes who the rule is conferred to and blue denotes the effect being conferred. Both apply an effect to the unit, on the basis of a condition being met. The effects are different and the conditions to be met are different, but in both instances the recipient is exactly the same; "they" or "a unit"/"Assault Squads".

The biggest difference however in probably the most important is that it says that:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"

This means that just a single model has to have this rule to affect the entire unit, whereas there is nothing in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule that says anything like this. It specifically mentions Assault Squads taken in this Formation can charge the turn they arrive from Reserves and the Special Rule First Fire then the Blade is what allows them to do that. An Independent Character could join the squad but he would still have to follow the guidelines for special rules that all ICs have to.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

I'm talking about the wording of the rule itself, regardless of whether or not an Independent Character is attached. If we eliminate the bit that's irrelevant, can we effectively stitch the rule back together to read as I've stated, yes or no?

Yes we can read it as you have stitched it back together and I can see how that part is worded could make sense in the way you're describing. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still a special rule and independent characters still have to deal with special rules as described on page 166. It doesn't change the fact that the special rule doesn't specifically confer over to the independent character so he still could not assault with the Assault Marines, and really doesn't surprise me that GW worded something poorly!

Okay, let's colour it in, compared with the rules for 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."

"On the turn Assault Squads from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arrive from Deep Strike Reserves they can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

You'll notice that they're structurally exactly the same. Red denotes the condition for the rule being conferred, green denotes who the rule is conferred to and blue denotes the effect being conferred. Both apply an effect to the unit, on the basis of a condition being met. The effects are different and the conditions to be met are different, but in both instances the recipient is exactly the same; "they" or "a unit"/"Assault Squads".

I like this explanation, it quite clearly denotes the point.

The same point repeated over and over and over for now what? 16 Pages?

The effects of the Rules get applied to the whole Unit, including the IC. Because "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule says it applies to Units.

 BlackTalos wrote:

The effects of the Rules get applied to the whole Unit, including the IC. Because "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule says it applies to Units.

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

Yes it applies to the Assault Squads or "units" as you put it but that doesn't change the fact it's a Special Rule. Lookup independent Characters in the Rulebook they have to deal with special rules differently than other rules.

 gmaleron wrote:
Yes it applies to the Assault Squads or "units" as you put it but that doesn't change the fact it's a Special Rule. Lookup independent Characters in the Rulebook they have to deal with special rules differently than other rules.

Yes, "Narthecium" is a Special Rule that the Apothecary has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Repeated: The IC cannot be "conferred" the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule: He cannot "get" that Rule.

But what the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule actually does, can apply to an IC.

This debate in question centers around the wording of a special rule correct? Even if the wording is poor it is still a special rule so the Independent Character would still have to treat it like every other Special Rule. Now how it is written under Independent Characters dealing with Special Rules supports Gmaleron in his reasoning why it cannot be taken, and it would be kind of cheese even for GW to let beefed up characters charge after coming in from reserve.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Yes, "Narthecium" is a Special Rule that the Apothecary has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Narthecium is a piece of Wargear that gives the Special Rule not a Special Rule itself so that doesn't work.

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Yes, "Narthecium" is a Special Rule that the Apothecary has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Narthecium is a piece of Wargear that gives the Special Rule not a Special Rule itself so that doesn't work.

Granted, but it still distributes a Special Rule in the same way "First Fire then the Blade" does.

Oh and you skipped "Stubborn"? Too dangerous to cover?

 Rommel44 wrote:
This debate in question centers around the wording of a special rule correct? Even if the wording is poor it is still a special rule so the Independent Character would still have to treat it like every other Special Rule. Now how it is written under Independent Characters dealing with Special Rules supports Gmaleron in his reasoning why it cannot be taken, and it would be kind of cheese even for GW to let beefed up characters charge after coming in from reserve.

It supports gmaleron in the sense that the rule makes no mention of attached Independent Characters, but it supports no one in that I can't think of any special rule off the top of my head that mentions attached Independent Characters.

The Independent Character rules themselves say the rule must specify whether it confer to any joined Independent Characters and then points us to Stubborn as an example of a rule which does confer to joined Independent Characters, except the rules for Stubborn make no mention whatsoever of being conferred to joined Independent Characters.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Yes, "Narthecium" is a Special Rule that the Apothecary has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Narthecium is a piece of Wargear that gives the Special Rule not a Special Rule itself so that doesn't work.

Granted, but it still distributes a Special Rule in the same way "First Fire then the Blade" does.

Oh and you skipped "Stubborn"? Too dangerous to cover?

Not at all no need to get so worked up about it. and there is a big difference between a piece of war gear giving a special rule then just having the special rule. And no it does not apply to the IC because it is a special rule that is allowing them to do in the first place.

 gmaleron wrote:
The biggest difference however in probably the most important is that it says that:

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"

This means that just a single model has to have this rule to affect the entire unit, whereas there is nothing in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule that says anything like this. It specifically mentions Assault Squads taken in this Formation can charge the turn they arrive from Reserves and the Special Rule First Fire then the Blade is what allows them to do that. An Independent Character could join the squad but he would still have to follow the guidelines for special rules that all ICs have to.

That's because First the Fire, then the Blade only needs the unit to be an Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force, which a joined Independent Character counts as part of.

Really Blacktalos? this is a discussion not a fight, no need to act like a "tough guy" on a public forum.

And Mrshine an Independent Character is still an independent character even if he is attached to a unit or not . And stubborn is covered by "a model" which to me means it could be anything including a character. I will say though it is a poor example but no one can be faulted for following the rules as written in the rulebook.

 gmaleron wrote:
Not at all no need to get so worked up about it. and there is a big difference between a piece of war gear giving a special rule then just having the special rule. And no it does not apply to the IC because it is a special rule that is allowing them to do in the first place.

Please explain the difference, with rules support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rommel44 wrote:
And Mrshine an Independent Character is still an independent character even if he is attached to a unit or not . And stubborn is covered by "a model" which to me means it could be anything including a character. I will say though it is a poor example but no one can be faulted for following the rules as written in the rulebook.

And when joined to a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Stubborn requires one model to have the special rule for the unit to benefit, while First the Fire, then the Blade requires the unit to be an Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. That doesn't say, or even remotely mean, "the unit" for one includes Independent Characters while "the unit" for the other does not.

If a piece of Wargear gives a special rule like Terminator Armor and independent character joins the unit without wearing Terminator armor he would not have relentless like they do.

On that note, where does it say in the First Fire then the Blade special rule that independent characters ignore the guidlines for special rules that they have to follow?

Correct he does count as part of the unit EXCEPT for Special Rules which is made it quite clear in the rulebook. There is no difference between the term unit but there still is a difference for independent characters, they still have to follow the rules in regards to Special Rules. If it was not listed under a Special Rule I would agree with you but the fact of the matter is that it is listed as a special rule and Independent Characters have to follow that

I don't get worked up anymore, i've had 40 pages discussion with users much more riling than this...

I'm just making sure your interpretation, which i believe is incorrect, adds up properly.
If i can point out to you that it does not, we might achieve agreement.

So would you reply with you opinion on:

Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

When i replied to

 gmaleron wrote:
Yes it applies to the Assault Squads or "units" as you put it but that doesn't change the fact it's a Special Rule.

How can you tell if a special rule can apply to independent characters or not? What criteria denotes this?

 Mr. Shine wrote:


And when joined to a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Stubborn requires one model to have the special rule for the unit to benefit, while First the Fire, then the Blade requires the unit to be an Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. That doesn't say, or even remotely mean, "the unit" for one includes Independent Characters while "the unit" for the other does not.

Rommel nailed it on the head, independent characters still do not ignore what they have to check in regards to special rules found in the unit. ICs do count as part of the unit for all rule purposes, but that refers to when taking casualties, checks, movement, shooting ect. The fact that it is a special rule means he still has to follow the guidelines for special rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Because the rule of Stubborn says that one model in the unit which could be the unit itself or the IC gives it to the entire unit whereas in the formation it does not.

 Rommel44 wrote:
Correct he does count as part of the unit EXCEPT for Special Rules which is made it quite clear in the rulebook.

Incorrect. It is not a blanket "Special Rules don't apply" Statement. The exact Quote is:

the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

What does this mean?

It means that an Independent Character without Special Rule "X" does not get Special Rule "X" if the Unit has it. Agreed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
How can you tell if a special rule can apply to independent characters or not? What criteria denotes this?

A Special Rule applies to what the Special Rule itself describes it applies to.

"Stubborn" applies to: "a unit"

"First Fire then the Blade" applies to: "Assault Squads"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Yes, "Stubborn" is a Special Rule that "a model" has. You still apply that rule to attached ICs.

Because the rule of Stubborn says that one model in the unit which could be the unit itself or the IC gives it to the entire unit whereas in the formation it does not.

No, the rule of Stubborn requires "contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests" in order to be applicable to "a unit".

The rule of First Fire then the Blade requires "On the turn (...) arrive from Deep Strike Reserves" in order to be applicable to "Assault Squads".

When both above requirements are met, which models benefit?

I never said special rules don't apply don't put words in my mouth. And yes he does not get that special rule, and because Assault Marines get that ability because of a special rule he is unable to use it. This is sounding more and more of an attempt to exploit a loophole due to poor writing by GW, thankfully it's still listed as a special rule which means people can't and most decent players won't try to abuse.

 Rommel44 wrote:
I never said special rules don't apply don't put words in my mouth. And yes he does not get that special rule, and because Assault Marines get that ability because of a special rule he is unable to use it.

Correct, the IC never gets the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule.

Just as the IC never gets the "Stubborn" Special Rule.

But when a Pinning test comes up, all models in the Unit get affected by the "Stubborn" Special Rule.
And when arriving from Deep Strike Reserves, all models in the Unit get affected by the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule.

 Rommel44 wrote:
This is sounding more and more of an attempt to exploit a loophole due to poor writing by GW, thankfully it's still listed as a special rule which means people can't and most decent players won't try to abuse.

Can we discuss Rules? I have no interest about who's Whining.

 BlackTalos wrote:

When both above requirements are met, which models benefit?

The entire unit get stubborn thanks to how the rule is written but the IC is still not able to assault after deep strike because he does not have first fire then the blade Special Rule and he was not part of the formation army list entry. Because it is a special rule he has to follow the guidelines that all independent characters do for special rules, he cannot use it no matter how hard you try to word it.

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

When both above requirements are met, which models benefit?

The entire unit get stubborn thanks to how the rule is written but the IC is still not able to assault after deep strike because he does not have first fire then the blades special rule and he was not part of the formation army list entry.

Very true, he does not have first fire then the blades special rule and he was not part of the formation army list entry.

He is part of the Unit when they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves though, and thus the allowance to charge that gets applied to the Unit when they "arrive from Deep Strike Reserves" applies.

He doesn't need to have the Special Rule the effect is being granted from the unit when it arrives from reserves. If the unit is allowed to assault it will allow the IC to as well.

 gmaleron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

When both above requirements are met, which models benefit?

The entire unit get stubborn thanks to how the rule is written but the IC is still not able to assault after deep strike because he does not have first fire then the blade Special Rule and he was not part of the formation army list entry. Because it is a special rule he has to follow the guidelines that all independent characters do for special rules, he cannot use it no matter how hard you try to word it.

Do the individual assault marines have the special rule? What about the sergeant? Is it the unit as a whole?


How can you tell if a special rule can apply to independent characters or not? What criteria denotes this? (Black Talos answered this for himself I would like to see if you agree)

When the requirement of "contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests", please tell me who gets to "ignore any negative Leadership modifiers"?

When the requirement of "On the turn (...) arrive from Deep Strike Reserves", please tell me who gets to "can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn"?

Drager wrote:

Do the individual assault marines have the special rule? What about the sergeant? Is it the unit as a whole?
How can you tell if a special rule can apply to independent characters or not? What criteria denotes this? (Black Talos answered this for himself I would like to see if you agree)

The Assault Marines squad as a whole have the Special Rule because it says they do therefore independent characters who join the squad have to follow the guidelines for special rules as found in their profile on page 166 in the rulebook. If you read that it clearly states that independent characters do not benefit from the special rule unless it specifically confers to them, now in the case of stubborn it says that a model whether that be the unit itself, the sergeant in the unit or the independent character attached to itis the only one that has to have it. How stubborn is written means it affects the entire unit so it is a special rule specifically stating it confers to the unit.

 BlackTalos wrote:

The entire squad gets affected by the stubborn special rule as I have stated multiple times thanks to how the rule stubborn is is written.
Only the assault marines because they have the first fire than the blade special rule where an IC that joins the unit does not. Let me break it down:

-Assault Marine Squad is a unit with first fire then the blade special rule.
-IC joins that unit, being independent character he has to follow the guidelines for special rules.
-When looking at the first fire then the blade special rule it does not specifically state that it confers to independent characters as found on the rules in page 166 of the rulebook.
-The IC cannot benefit from the first fire then the blades special rule.

 gmaleron wrote:
The entire squad gets affected by the stubborn special rule as I have stated multiple times thanks to how the rule stubborn is is written.

Only the assault marines because they have the first fire than the blade special rule where an IC that joins the unit does not.

That's exactly the same for Stubborn.

Would it work for First the Fire, then the Blade, if it said:

"If at least one model in the unit has this special rule, on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

?

There are a lot of creative ways people are picking apart the the wording of the special rule itself yet for some reason seemed to continually dodged the fact that it is a Special Rule and that Independant Characters have to follow certain guidelines with them.

 Rommel44 wrote:
There are a lot of creative ways people are picking apart the the wording of the special rule itself yet for some reason seemed to continually dodged the fact that it is a Special Rule and that Independant Characters have to follow certain guidelines with them.

So is Stubborn.

Your point?

It doesn't so I fail to see how that is revelant to this argument, throwing out "what ifs" for rules that are already written is not going to solve the problem. And it is not the same as stubborn as stubborn clearly states in its description that affects the entire unit thanks to one model.

 gmaleron wrote:
-When looking at the first fire then the blade special rule it does not specifically state that it confers to independent characters as found on the rules in page 166 of the rulebook.

Does stubborn specifically state that it confers to independent characters?

No. They both apply to "Units". These units include "models", and they all benefit.

 gmaleron wrote:
It doesn't so I fail to see how that is revelant to this argument, throwing out "what ifs" for rules that are already written is not going to solve the problem. And it is not the same as stubborn as stubborn clearly states in its description that affects the entire unit thanks to one model.

The point would have been that if it applied if the rule said "if at least one model" and it worked why wouldn't it work if the rule simply covered the entire unit with the rule. But you're still stuck on the point that "a unit with at least one model with this special rule" is not stating who benefits and whether it includes joined Independent Characters.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Does stubborn specifically state that it confers to independent characters?
No. They both apply to "Units". These units include "models", and they all benefit.

No but because of how it's worded it affects the entire unit, which could be with or without an independent character. First fire then the blade specifically says Assault Squads in a Skyhammer assault formation.

First Fire then the Blade:

"On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule AND THE Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."

This clearly denotes the Assault Squads that are part of the Skyhammer Assault formation having the Special Rule meaning that IC would have to respect the special rules guidelines laid out on page 166.