So this came up like this. Bemused strike force says its units can roll first turn for for deepstrike. What happens when I have a squad of grey knight terminators with a blood angel in terminator armor attached. It's still a squad from the detachment so can it then still till first turn??

Also the other way around, a blood angel terminator squad with a grey knight librarian ??

IC's become the unit they join so GK squad with a BA IC in it is still a GK unit

But its the not the same in reverse. So a GK IC joining another armies unit does not make it a GK unit so wouldn't get to deep strike turn 1 in this case.

Where did you find this??? I

OneMeanDuck wrote:
Where did you find this??? I

The rules for ICs joining other units is pretty clear on this.

SJ

Don't have my book in front of me so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the Rites of Teleportation state that only units from the Grey Knights Detachment can use it, so attached ICs and vice versa can't DS turn 1 with the GK.

 Homeskillet wrote:
Don't have my book in front of me so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the Rites of Teleportation state that only units from the Grey Knights Detachment can use it, so attached ICs and vice versa can't DS turn 1 with the GK.

The rules for ICs make this clear. The BA DSing character can DS with the GKs turn 1 but the GK character cannot with the BA unit.

command benefits do not extend to ICs unless the command benefit specifically states it does so, as per the rules for ICs regarding special rules, and as per the rules for command benefits from the section on detachments.

no model can belong to more than one detachment, and no model can change which detachment it is part of.

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

the BA model attached is not a unit from that detachment. The rites of teleportation rule would not extend to it, as per the RAW for ICs and units.

for the same reason it would not extend from a GK IC from this detachment to another squad,

so the answer is no to both, in neither instance may you benefit from rites of teleportation as per the RAW for ICs and special rules, and as per the raw for belonging to detachments, and as per the RAW of rites of teleportation stating it extends to units from that detachment.

and no an IC from outside of that detachment is not a unit from that detachment, it is a unit from its own detachment even if it is 'joined' to a unit from this detachment.

if it said "the unit" or "any units with models from this detachment" it would be different, but it spells out it affects the units from that detachment, which in this case the BA IC and the BA squad are not from it.

blaktoof wrote:
command benefits do not extend to ICs unless the command benefit specifically states it does so, as per the rules for ICs regarding special rules, and as per the rules for command benefits from the section on detachments.

no model can belong to more than one detachment, and no model can change which detachment it is part of.

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

the BA model attached is not a unit from that detachment. The rites of teleportation rule would not extend to it, as per the RAW for ICs and units.

for the same reason it would not extend from a GK IC from this detachment to another squad,

so the answer is no to both, in neither instance may you benefit from rites of teleportation as per the RAW for ICs and special rules, and as per the raw for belonging to detachments, and as per the RAW of rites of teleportation stating it extends to units from that detachment.

and no an IC from outside of that detachment is not a unit from that detachment, it is a unit from its own detachment even if it is 'joined' to a unit from this detachment.

if it said "the unit" or "any units with models from this detachment" it would be different, but it spells out it affects the units from that detachment, which in this case the BA IC and the BA squad are not from it.

His logic ruined all my fun I was trying to figure out what GK unit I could stuff jump packs on so I could bring them in no scatter with Dante. :(

blaktoof wrote:

and no an IC from outside of that detachment is not a unit from that detachment, it is a unit from its own detachment even if it is 'joined' to a unit from this detachment.

However, when a BA IC joins a GK Unit, it becomes a part of the GK unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES, as very clearly mentioned in the IC section. This includes for purposes of Detachments, as detachments are a part of the rules. This single statement has caused great confusion in many places, especially in the hands of such things as Preferred Enemy. The BA literally joins the GK detachment in this case, and becomes a part of the GK unit, despite the -MODEL- having the BA faction. The special rules that the GK unit already possesses, such as Brotherhood of Psykers, would not be conferred. However, the Command Benefit applies to the entire unit, similarly to how having a Painboy in a unit of Orks confers feel no pain to the unit. In the reverse case, the GK IC literally joins the BA unit, and therefore would not be eligible for the Rites as he is no longer a GK detachment unit.

Blak was argued against on this before, but still sticks to the idea that the IC - which is not a BA unit any longer - can be treated distinctly from the GK unit he is attached to.

This of course breaks the IC rules.

YEs, a BA attached to a GK terminator squad can DS turn 1, as the UNIT is a UNIT from the GK detachment. Nothing blaktoof quotes will ever change that fact.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/612847.page

Pretty much the same "IC part of unit" discussion

I'd like to point out that if a non-NSF IC joining a NSF unit prevents the Command Benefit of Rites of Teleportation, then a non-CAD IC joining a CAD Troop will prevent the Command Benefit of Objective Secured. RoT and ObSec are both command benefits of their respective detachments; why would one work while the other would not?

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blak was argued against on this before, but still sticks to the idea that the IC - which is not a BA unit any longer - can be treated distinctly from the GK unit he is attached to.

This of course breaks the IC rules.

YEs, a BA attached to a GK terminator squad can DS turn 1, as the UNIT is a UNIT from the GK detachment. Nothing blaktoof quotes will ever change that fact.

You are quite good at cherry picking.

Refer to the the specific rule regarding IC s and joining units with regards to special rules.

Refer to units and detachments. Units belong to detachmenys, no unit can belong to more than one detachment.
State a rule anywhere that let's you leave a detachment or join a new detachment, until then your point is purely hywpi as again you fail to state any raw beyond the general rule for ice joining units and ignore the specific raw AreS mentioned above.

Also show which slot the BA IC comes from in the NSFW detachment as the special rule specifies units from that detachment.

Good luck, you already failed.

The BA IC isn't from the GK detachment - he doesn't have to be.

His unit gets to do cool stuff. He's a member of that unit. Cite rules denying these two facts.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blak was argued against on this before, but still sticks to the idea that the IC - which is not a BA unit any longer - can be treated distinctly from the GK unit he is attached to.

This of course breaks the IC rules.

YEs, a BA attached to a GK terminator squad can DS turn 1, as the UNIT is a UNIT from the GK detachment. Nothing blaktoof quotes will ever change that fact.

You are quite good at cherry picking.

Refer to the the specific rule regarding IC s and joining units with regards to special rules.

Refer to units and detachments. Units belong to detachmenys, no unit can belong to more than one detachment.
State a rule anywhere that let's you leave a detachment or join a new detachment, until then your point is purely hywpi as again you fail to state any raw beyond the general rule for ice joining units and ignore the specific raw AreS mentioned above.

Also show which slot the BA IC comes from in the NSFW detachment as the special rule specifies units from that detachment.

Good luck, you already failed.

No, not cherry picking. Pointing out your logical and raw failing.

Is the BA IC a unit while attached? No? Then your argument is disproven. At no point do i claim the ba IC has switched detachment - stop straw manning, it does you little credit. I also note you failed to rebut, just repeated error laden arguments. Not helpful

The UNIT is from the GK detachment. The UNIT may deepstrike turn one. Cite denial , which you cannot do.

Mark it hywpi, as your argument is invalidated.

So does this also mean that any Imperial IC with the DS special rule can come in turn one with Deathwing Termies?

 extremefreak17 wrote:
So does this also mean that any Imperial IC with the DS special rule can come in turn one with Deathwing Termies?

No, because the Deathwing Assault rule specifies that every model in the unit must have the DWA special rule (and terminator armour), whereas Rites doesn't require the entire unit to have the rule. It's not worded in a way such as Stubborn or Fleet, which are clear if they work on the whole unit or not. Rites is unclear, or unspecific, and just requires a general "unit from NSF detachment", not "unit entirely from".

I see, DWA has a model by model requirement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blak was argued against on this before, but still sticks to the idea that the IC - which is not a BA unit any longer - can be treated distinctly from the GK unit he is attached to.

This of course breaks the IC rules.

YEs, a BA attached to a GK terminator squad can DS turn 1, as the UNIT is a UNIT from the GK detachment. Nothing blaktoof quotes will ever change that fact.

You are quite good at cherry picking.

Refer to the the specific rule regarding IC s and joining units with regards to special rules.

Refer to units and detachments. Units belong to detachmenys, no unit can belong to more than one detachment.
State a rule anywhere that let's you leave a detachment or join a new detachment, until then your point is purely hywpi as again you fail to state any raw beyond the general rule for ice joining units and ignore the specific raw AreS mentioned above.

Also show which slot the BA IC comes from in the NSFW detachment as the special rule specifies units from that detachment.

Good luck, you already failed.

No, not cherry picking. Pointing out your logical and raw failing.

Is the BA IC a unit while attached? No? Then your argument is disproven. At no point do i claim the ba IC has switched detachment - stop straw manning, it does you little credit. I also note you failed to rebut, just repeated error laden arguments. Not helpful

The UNIT is from the GK detachment. The UNIT may deepstrike turn one. Cite denial , which you cannot do.

Mark it hywpi, as your argument is invalidated.

You already cited denial.

the unit is not from the gk detachment, you cannot change detachments and cannot be in more than one detachment.

if you join an IC from detachment A to detachment B's unit, the IC is still from Detachment A, and is never selected from the FoC or required formation units for detachment B.

Cite permission to count as a member of another detachment, or switch detachments, so that you can properly support your claim.

The special rule in question does not extend to the unit as you have erroneously stated many many times, it extends to "units from the detachment" no part of the actual special rule specifically states it extends to other models in the unit that are not from the detachment.

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.

so how does the BA IC switch detachments to the GK NSF one, please cite a rule from any book.

because the above statement is the only way the BA IC is gaining the special rule, as the RAW states its a special rule for units from that detachment, and models may not belong to more than one detachment.

Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements.

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

As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

This lists any additional bonuses or special rules that apply to some, or all, of the units in this Detachment.

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

In the following army list

CAD-
HQ- Chapter master with whatever
Troops- Scouts
Troops- Scouts

NSF-
HQ-Librarian
Troop-Strike Squad

Which detachment does the chapter master belong to?

if it joins the strike squad, which detachment does it belong to?

The RAW answer is the same for both of the above questions.

rites of teleportation is a special rule that is granted to units chosen from the NSF detachment, which detachment is the Chapter master from?

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.

The special rule obviously does not extend to all models in the unit from its wording, and is obviously only granted to units from the NSF detachment.

cite permission for the the IC to switch detachments.

Is this topic going to return with every new codex/formation supplement release?

Command benefits are the special rules that are applied only to the models & units in the formation detachment they are listed for. Unless a specific command benefit clearly states that it may be applied to a model that joins a unit in the formation, or may be used on a model/unit outside the formation, then it simply can not.

 Amiricle wrote:
Is this topic going to return with every new codex/formation supplement release?

Command benefits are the special rules that are applied only to the models & units in the formation detachment they are listed for. Unless a specific command benefit clearly states that it may be applied to a model that joins a unit in the formation, or may be used on a model/unit outside the formation, then it simply can not.

Rules citation?

Because as written it works regardless of the IC joining. A GK unit from the detachment is still a GK unit from the detachment regardless of an IC joining it or not (it doesn't make the unit come from a different detachment).

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

Seems pretty clear to me. Attach an IC (from any eligible Allied detachment) to your GK unit, and they can arrive with that unit as per the NSF rules, provided they have the Deep Strike special rule (since that rule is on a by model basis).

I think it's also important to note that GW went to the trouble of highlighting and specifically addressing a very similar issue:

"An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment."

Why include that very specific restriction if it wasn't assumed that the default answer would be 'yes' for any other instance not specifically addressed?

Deepstriking Inquisitor bomb is still a go!

DoW

the rule works for the GKs in the detachment, if you join a model from outside of the detachment, the model does not gain the rule. Unless the model has a rule that lets you do the same thing, the unit cannot teleport turn 1. For the same reason if you take a unit of models with deepstrike and attach an IC to them that does not have it, or a unit of models with infiltrate, and attach an IC with them that does not have it..the special rule does not extend to the IC unless it specifically states it does as per the RAW for ICs and special rules.

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.

Fortunately this is actually covered in the rules for rites of battle, as nowhere does it state you must do this, but rather you can do this. As you are no longer allowed because you 'chose' to add a unit in that does not have the special rule. So instead you make your reserve roll for that unit from turn 2 on like normal.

You can have the models in the unit that have the special rule, which would of course not include any model from outside of the detachment attached to it, still run and shoot in any order on the turn they arrive from deep strike reserve.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DogOfWar wrote:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Seems pretty clear to me. Attach an IC (from any eligible Allied detachment) to your GK unit, and they can arrive with that unit as per the NSF rules, provided they have the Deep Strike special rule (since that rule is on a by model basis).

I think it's also important to note that GW went to the trouble of highlighting and specifically addressing a very similar issue:

"An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment."

Why include that very specific restriction if it wasn't assumed that the default answer would be 'yes' for any other instance not specifically addressed?

Deepstriking Inquisitor bomb is still a go!

DoW

finish reading the rules under ICs....

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.

It's been cited many times here, the other thread on this same thing, the Space Wolf deepstriker thread, the ork thread on red skull kommandos, etc.

Page 121 BRB, read "Command Benefits" and "Formations"
Page 166 BRB, under "Independent Character" read "Special Rules"

I agree.

I think some people are getting hung up on special rules, and assuming detachment special rules are some kind of "psychic blessing" that extend to any model that is friendly and comes within 2" of a model from the detachment.

some models in your army have special rules from their unit entries.

some models are granted special rules from being organized into certain unit structures with command benefits / or formation special rules that are given to the units from those formations. That is specifically the units chosen from the FoC in the detachment / the required units of a formation.

some of these special rules specify they extend to any model in the unit per the special rule itself, some do not specify because they only affect the models that have the special rule- like eternal warrior, or any plethora of other special rules which do not state they extend to other models.

some people would like for this rule to extend to other models, but it clearly does not state that it does as per stubbon, shrouded, hit and run, etc.

and as per the Page 166 BRB, under "Independent Character" read "Special Rules" a IC does not gain the special rules the other models in the unit have just by virtue of being in the unit, if the special rule specifically states it extends to other models like stubborn they can benefit from it, otherwise they do not get it. and vice versa between the IC and the unit.

blaktoof wrote:

finish reading the rules under ICs....

That's actually prior to the rule I quoted (if you're going to be snarky, at least be correct) but I'll let that slide since it's late.

You seem to have missed where I talked about Deep Strike and how that is a Special Rule that is not conferred to Independent Characters (as per the rule you quoted). However, the NSF rule doesn't say anything of the sort. As others have mentioned (several times) the NSF rule states:

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

Rights of Teleportation isn't a Special Rule, it's a Command Benefit. Provided the IC has the ability to Deep Strike (as the rules for Deep Strike are on a model by model basis), there's nothing stopping you from using this Command Benefit to modify the way the Unit arrives from Reserves.

The ONLY way you would be correct, is if the rule stated "a unit comprised wholly of" or "a unit containing only models from Codex: GK" (as many rules already do), but it clearly doesn't. The unit is still from Detachment Grey Knights no matter if it has a single attached IC or 100 attached ICs. You attach the IC to the unit. What unit, you say? The unit from Detachment Grey Knights. I really don't see how that can be misconstrued so badly.

Additionally, I'm actually very curious why you think GW specifically included the Infiltrate clarification (an entire subtitled section of the rules, no less) since you seem to believe there is no reason for that clarification at all.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

finish reading the rules under ICs....

That's actually prior to the rule I quoted (if you're going to be snarky, at least be correct) but I'll let that slide since it's late.

You seem to have missed where I talked about Deep Strike and how that is a Special Rule that is not conferred to Independent Characters (as per the rule you quoted). However, the NSF rule doesn't say anything of the sort. As others have mentioned (several times) the NSF rule states:

It doesn't have to state a negative (I.e. exclude models), It has to state a positive (i.e. that it confers to other models - it doesn't) A rule has to state that it confers to additional models. The default is always no. (Page 121)

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

Rights of Teleportation isn't a Special Rule, it's a Command Benefit. Provided the IC has the ability to Deep Strike (as the rules for Deep Strike are on a model by model basis), there's nothing stopping you from using this Command Benefit to modify the way the Unit arrives from Reserves.

re infiltrate.

the infiltrate special rule states that if a unit contains at least one model with this special rule then it may infiltrate. This is a special rule that specifically state it extends to all models in the unit if at least one has it, unlike "rites of teleportation"

the section in ICs and infiltrate states that if an IC without infiltrate cannot join a unit that has it.

This was done so that that you could specifically not extend the benefit of Infiltrate to an IC that does not have one, but could extend the benefit of infiltrate from an IC to a unit that did not have it, ie ravenguard special character.

if they wanted Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as shrouded, stubborn, etc.

blaktoof wrote:

if they wanted Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as shrouded, stubborn, etc.

if they didn't want Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as Infiltrator, Relentless, etc.

 CrownAxe wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

if they wanted Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as shrouded, stubborn, etc.

if they didn't want Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as Infiltrator, Relentless, etc.

unfortunately your statement makes 0 sense in a permissive rules set.

would you like to discuss more things we can pretend we have permission to do when its not stated?

blaktoof wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

if they wanted Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as shrouded, stubborn, etc.

if they didn't want Rites of teleportation to extend to all models in the unit, they would have done so- as they obviously were able to make the distinction with special rules such as Infiltrator, Relentless, etc.

unfortunately your statement makes 0 sense in a permissive rules set.

would you like to discuss more things we can pretend we have permission to do when its not stated?

Rites of Teleportation is the permission, to change it you need an exception which you have yet to provide.

yes rites of teleportation gives permission to "units from the NSF detachment" to have a special rule.

the special rule does not give permission for it to extend to other models in the unit if any or one model has it, refer to section on ICs and special rules.

find a rule that says ICs can switch witch detachment they are from, or be in more than 1 detachment to gain this special rule.

you should probably also find a rule that lets an IC from not GK gain GK faction, as the NSF detachment requires GK faction as well.

blaktoof wrote:
yes rites of teleportation gives permission to "units from the NSF detachment" to have a special rule.

the special rule does not give permission for it to extend to other models in the unit if any or one model has it, refer to section on ICs and special rules.

It actually does. The example in the rule you often quote is Stubborn - let's look at the wording of that rule.

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.

Rites:

In addition, all units from this Detachment can both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve.

Note how both rules are unit based (all units, a unit that contains...). Neither rule exempts specific models.

Your cited rule doesn't apply. Keep reaching.

You have a deep misunderstanding of how detachments work.

the unit is not from the gk detachment, you cannot change detachments and cannot be in more than one detachment.

if you join an IC from detachment A to detachment B's unit, the IC is still from Detachment A, and is never selected from the FoC or required formation units for detachment B.

Cite permission to count as a member of another detachment, or switch detachments, so that you can properly support your claim.

The special rule in question does not extend to the unit as you have erroneously stated many many times, it extends to "units from the detachment" no part of the actual special rule specifically states it extends to other models in the unit that are not from the detachment.

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.

so how does the BA IC switch detachments to the GK NSF one, please cite a rule from any book.

because the above statement is the only way the BA IC is gaining the special rule, as the RAW states its a special rule for units from that detachment, and models may not belong to more than one detachment.

Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements.

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

As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

This lists any additional bonuses or special rules that apply to some, or all, of the units in this Detachment.

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

In the following army list

CAD-
HQ- Chapter master with whatever
Troops- Scouts
Troops- Scouts

NSF-
HQ-Librarian
Troop-Strike Squad

Which detachment does the chapter master belong to?

if it joins the strike squad, which detachment does it belong to?

The RAW answer is the same for both of the above questions.

rites of teleportation is a special rule that is granted to units chosen from the NSF detachment, which detachment is the Chapter master from?

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.

The special rule obviously does not extend to all models in the unit from its wording, and is obviously only granted to units from the NSF detachment.

cite permission for the the IC to switch detachments, or belong to more than one detachment. Otherwise the IC does not benefit from the special rule, as even if it joins a unit from the NSF detachment, it is not a unit from the NSF detachment as per the RAW.

I agree with that train of thought only because it seems appropriate, but as we know, when discussion RaW, wishful thinking is not a valid choice.
The problem comes down to this statement:

blaktoof wrote:
no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.

When the SM Commander joins a Strike Squad, they are, from Turn 1 to 6 a single unit (if they stay together).

So what is that single unit's Detachment? A or B?

And that is the root of the issue. As much as i want to agree with you that the IC is A and the Squad is B, that the special rules for detachment are always separate, etc, there will always be a discrepancy :/

blaktoof wrote:
You have a deep misunderstanding of how detachments work.

No, I don't. You have a deep misunderstanding of how the rules work.

the unit is not from the gk detachment, you cannot change detachments and cannot be in more than one detachment.

The GK unit is not from the GK detachment? Prove it. Please. I would love to see it.

if you join an IC from detachment A to detachment B's unit, the IC is still from Detachment A, and is never selected from the FoC or required formation units for detachment B.

Irrelevant and not being argued.

Cite permission to count as a member of another detachment, or switch detachments, so that you can properly support your claim.

My claim doesn't rely on this at all. Perhaps if you'd read my posts instead of assuming you're correct?

The special rule in question does not extend to the unit as you have erroneously stated many many times, it extends to "units from the detachment" no part of the actual special rule specifically states it extends to other models in the unit that are not from the detachment.

I have a model that is a member of a unit. That unit is a unit from the detachment. Cite permission to exclude that model.

so how does the BA IC switch detachments to the GK NSF one, please cite a rule from any book.

Stop claiming this as my argument. I haven't ever said this is true. You're arguing a strawman here.

And you still haven't answered how those rules are broken. Please do so. I've asked politely twice (three times now).

strawman...

blaktoof wrote:
strawman...

So please - show me where I've argued that the BA IC changes detachment.

The only way you can give a unit from outside a NSF detachment the special rule you are trying to give it is by making it change detachments, or count as being in both detachments.

it is not a member of the NSF detachment.

detachment special rules are granted by being in the detachment, which is done well before the game or deployment during army selection.

The BA IC does not have the special rules for detachment it is not part of, and may not be in more than one detachment. Obviously its not in the NSF detachment, because its not GK faction which is required to be in the NSF detachment, and is a member of its own detachment, we will just say CAD.

the BA IC has the special rules granted to it from any wargear it may have, any special rules it may have from its own unit entry, and from the detachment it may belong to if any.

the same is true for the units that make up the NSF detachment.

during deployment after the detachments have already given the units in them their special rules/restrictions if you join the BA IC to a unit from the NSF squad you need specific permission for the special rule the NSF squad has to confer to any other model that joins it.

as per the rules for ICs and special rules.

joining an IC from a CAD to a unit from a NSF detachment does not make either one part of the others detachments.

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.

Otherwise the IC cannot benefit from the special rule it does not have.

blaktoof wrote:
The only way you can give a unit from outside a NSF detachment the special rule you are trying to give it is by making it change detachments, or count as being in both detachments.

Incorrect.

your statement is trolling unless you can actually provide a rules argument for how this happens.

blaktoof wrote:
your statement is trolling unless you can actually provide a rules argument for how this happens.

I have.
The detachment rule applies to units in the detachments. You're asserting that a specific model in a unit in the detachment is exempted from that rule, and keep citing detachment membership (which is irrelevant).
You haven't actually supported your statement that only models in the detachment can benefit from a rule specifying units in the detachment.

no, you have not shown how an IC from outside a detachment becomes a unit from that detachment.

where was the IC purchased, was it purchased as unit from that detachment or another one?

blaktoof wrote:
no, you have not shown how an IC from outside a detachment becomes a unit from that detachment.

That's not my argument and isn't required to prove my point.
That's the very definition of a strawman.

You're not arguing my point, you're picking something that I'm not arguing and saying "Since you can't prove that you're incorrect."

Argue against what I've said, please, and not what you think I should be saying.

it is required.

you do not understand the rules, nor what a strawman is.

your taking the rule "units from this detachment" get this rule.

then saying it says "units" get this rule.

then when anyone brings up the detachment part you pretty much get upset they are bringing up rules you arent arguing, because they are arguing the rules that actually exist other then what you have cherry picked for your poor claim.

Battle-forged Armies

A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments. Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements. For example, one common type of Detachment requires the use of at least one HQ unit and two Troops units; another might require that only units from Codex: Orks be included. As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

the command benefit is granted to units from within the detachment.

is an IC from outside of the NSF detachment within the detachment?

no, then it does not get the command benefit.

also there is

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

is the IC a model from the NSF detachment, also no...



Lets say we have a unit, IC from a CAD+5 strike squad members from a NSF detachment

great!

5 models in the unit have rites of teleportation and 1 does not. Looking at:

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.

we can see the unit has different special rules than the IC that joined it. If the rule specifies in the rule itself the rule is conferred to other models in the unit then the IC gets.

Does it?

nope, okay move on.
.

blaktoof wrote:
you do not understand the rules, nor what a strawman is.

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument"
You've misrepresented my argument to require that the IC changes detachments. I've never said that and never will. You are - by definition - misrepresenting my argument and therefore a strawman.
Please, defend your statements.

your taking the rule "units from this detachment" get this rule.

then saying it says "units" get this rule.

then when anyone brings up the detachment part you pretty much get upset they are bringing up rules you arent arguing, because they are arguing the rules that actually exist other then what you have cherry picked for your poor claim.

Um... no?
Units from the detachment get the rule. Absolutely. No question or argument at all. None.
The GK unit is granted the command benefit.
The BA IC does not get the same command benefit.

The BA IC is not its own unit when it joins the GK unit.
The GK unit still gets the command benefit - it's still from the GK detachment.
The BA IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Agreed?
You're asserting that a member of a unit does not benefit from a rule that all units in a GK detachment benefit from. Agreed?

the BA IC does not become a member of the detachment when it joins the unit.

the GK unit are given the command benefit by being in the detachment, it is a special rule not an ongoing effect. They get it during army creation when the unit is organized into the detachment, please read the section on battle forged armies.

the BA IC is a member of the unit, but does not gain the special rule because it is not a member of the DETACHMENT. The BA IC has the special rules from its detachment, which the unit it joins does not gain either if it is not part of the same detachment.

it is never a unit from the NSF detachment, nor is it ever part of a unit chosen from the units within the NSF detachment.

blaktoof wrote:
the BA IC does not become a member of the detachment when it joins the unit.

Correct!

the GK unit are given the command benefit by being in the detachment, it is a special rule not an ongoing effect.

Query: Does the unit have that special rule, or the detachment have a command benefit that all units in the detachment benefit from?

Battle-forged Armies

A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments. Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements. For example, one common type of Detachment requires the use of at least one HQ unit and two Troops units; another might require that only units from Codex: Orks be included. As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

answer your own question with the RAW.

blaktoof wrote:

Battle-forged Armies

A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments. Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements. For example, one common type of Detachment requires the use of at least one HQ unit and two Troops units; another might require that only units from Codex: Orks be included. As a reward for adhering to these requirements,

each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it,

which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

answer your own question with the RAW.

I did.
Each DETACHMENT (since you like caps) grants abilities to the units in it.
So it isn't a unit special rule, it's a DETACHMENT special rule.

So your oft-quoted IC rule doesn't apply.

even if that were true, which you are mistaken on.

an IC from outside the detachment is not from the NSF detachment.

However there is no such thing as a detachment special rule.

there are only special rules.

by adhering to the restrictions in the detachment, the units within the detachment are given the special rule.

to try and make it easier for you to understand this here we go.

CAD
HQ-Joe
Troops- Trolls

All troops from this detachment get the special rule X.

NSF
HQ-Peter
Troops-Dandys

All dandys in this detachment get the special rule Y.

So the army lists are made, you write down the unit entries and CAD troops get special rule X added to their entry, Dandys get special rule Y added to their entry.

You go on to roll sides do deployment, etc.

Certain units are given certain special rules by being chosen from within a detachment.

they are just special rules, and the rules regarding ICs apply.

even without it the IC does not gain the special rule because its not a model or unit chosen from within the NSF detachment.

The special rule is granted to the units/models chosen from within the detachment before the game begins. The special rule does not specifically state it confers to other models in the unit after the game begins.


can you find somewhere that tells us the difference between "detachment special rules" and just normal "special rules"?

also if you notice from

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment

You will see they are not detachment special rules, but they are just special rules as there are not multiple kinds of different special levels of special rules, like wargear special rules, unit entry special rules, detachment special rules, army special rules, formation special rules.

models have special rules by virtue of their entry, wargear, their detachment, or their formation, or their army. These are given to them before deployment of the game begins unless otherwise specified.

There is no RAW way to give a special rule granted by virtue of being chosen from a detachment, to models outside of that detachment short of the interaction required under the section for ICs and special rules.

blaktoof wrote:
even if that were true, which you are mistaken on.

Please, explain how I'm mistaken.

1.) I agree with blaktoof. Detachment rules apply to members of that detachment.

An IC joining a unit makes him a member of that unit, not the detachment. That seems pretty RAI and RAW.

2.) Anyone acussing someone else of a strawman argument, is usually grasping at straws at that point

3.) Granting detachment benefits to models outside the detachment with the rules for IC joining units would be an EXCEPTION to the requirements of the detachment rule, requiring a rule specifically allowing it.

IC rules are general concerning special abilities
Detachment rules are specific

Specific rules overide general

 adamsouza wrote:
1.) I agree with blaktoof. Detachment rules apply to members of that detachment.

An IC joining a unit makes him a member of that unit, not the detachment. That seems pretty RAI and RAW.

The detachment rules explicitly apply to units of that detachment.

2.) Anyone acussing someone else of a strawman argument, is usually grasping at straws at that point

Not when I've demonstrated it's true. Repeatedly.

3.) Granting detachment benefits to models outside the detachment with the rules for IC joining units would be an EXCEPTION to the requirements of the detachment rule, requiring a rule specifically allowing it.

No, it wouldn't. The detachment rule applies benefits to all units in the detachment. The IC rules require you to treat the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.
Is this a rules purpose?

The IC is not a member of that detachment.

The IC cannot become a member of that detachment, even by being joined to a unit from that detachment.

The IC already has the special rules from its detachment before its put on the table.

The unit already has the special rules from its detachment before it is put on the table.

If you join a unit with special rules to an IC that does not have that special rule you follow the rules for ICs joining units that have special rules the IC does not have.

The IC from a non NSF detachment is never, ever, a member of the NSF detachment. ever.

So as Rigeld showed, you both believe that a Unit with Objective Secured, joined by an IC without ObSec would obviously not have the Rule?

I can understand that position, but would not call it RaI even if RaW acceptable...

Also not HIWPI :/

blaktoof wrote:
The IC is not a member of that detachment.

The IC cannot become a member of that detachment, even by being joined to a unit from that detachment.

The IC already has the special rules from its detachment before its put on the table.

The unit already has the special rules from its detachment before it is put on the table.

Irrelevant and no one is arguing any of this. Repetition != relevancy.

If you join a unit with special rules to an IC that does not have that special rule you follow the rules for ICs joining units that have special rules the IC does not have.

The IC from a non NSF detachment is never, ever, a member of the NSF detachment. ever.

The unit doesn't have the special rule. The detachment gives the unit a bonus.
As to the bold, again - I've never, ever argued that. Ever. Repeating it doesn't mean I have.

the rules for objective secure are not the same as the one in question here, rites of teleportation.

fairly certain obj secure states its given to units troop units in the detachment, so those are the models with the special rule.

but the special rule obj secured states within itself that

All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured 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.

so even though an IC attached to the troop unit with OBJ secure does not have obj secure, obj secure itself states the unit with this special rule.

in the case of rites of teleportation it still specifies in the rule itself that units from the detachment have the special rule, then goes on to state "you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one."

the language in the two rules is different.

obj secure calls out a unit with the special rule.

rites of teleportation calls out units from the detachment.

the reason rites of teleportation doesn't work is because of the specific call out of units from the detachment, so a gk terminator squad has the rule, and an attached IC to it does not. The net effect is the whole unit does not have the rule, and there is no permission for the unit in general to use the rule without the whole unit having it, there is also the issue that the attached IC does not have the rule, and is not a unit from the NSF detachment even if attached to the gk terminator unit, it is a unit from its own detachment. There is just no way for the attached IC from outside of the NSF detachment to benefit from the rule because of how the rule is worded.

Now there are some other ICs that can deep strike turn 1 from their own special rules and would be able to join the gk unit and deepstrike with it, the attached IC would not benefit from rites of teleportation but would not prevent the unit from deepstriking turn 1 as the IC would be able to as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The IC is not a member of that detachment.

The IC cannot become a member of that detachment, even by being joined to a unit from that detachment.

The IC already has the special rules from its detachment before its put on the table.

The unit already has the special rules from its detachment before it is put on the table.

Irrelevant and no one is arguing any of this. Repetition != relevancy.

If you join a unit with special rules to an IC that does not have that special rule you follow the rules for ICs joining units that have special rules the IC does not have.

The IC from a non NSF detachment is never, ever, a member of the NSF detachment. ever.

The unit doesn't have the special rule. The detachment gives the unit a bonus.
As to the bold, again - I've never, ever argued that. Ever. Repeating it doesn't mean I have.

at this point absolutely anything you type is irrelevant.

There seems to be a lack of understanding in how units and IC joining units work. The rules are very specific that an IC becomes part of the unit he/she joins for all rules purposes. Therefore, if the unit that an IC join has a rule granted by it's detachment then it still has that rule and can still do it.

At no point is the IC being granted that rule. It may be benefiting from the rule because the unit it is part of is benefiting but the IC does not have the rule. The only time an IC doesn't benefit from rules granted to a unit it joins is when the rule specifically says so (Infiltrate, deep strike and such).

blaktoof wrote:
the rules for objective secure are not the same as the one in question here, rites of teleportation.

... what?

All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule.

In addition, all units from this Detachment can both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve.

How are they worded different?

so even though an IC attached to the troop unit with OBJ secure does not have obj secure, obj secure itself states the unit with this special rule.

in the case of rites of teleportation it still specifies in the rule itself that units from the detachment have the special rule, then goes on to state "you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one."

No, it never says that units have the special rule.

the language in the two rules is different.

No, they aren't.

at this point absolutely anything you type is irrelevant.

Pro debate skills right here. I'm sure you'll go far with this "I'm right because you don't know what you're talking about and I'm going to repeat myself until you believe me." attitude. Well done!

Hmm, interesting. I'm surprised to see so much disagreement on something so straightforward. Oh well, to each their own.

I'm going to happily allow players to use Rites of Teleportation with their GK armies and allied ICs. If you don't want to, fair enough, but I think you're incorrect.

DoW

So I'm going to wade on in with how I see this with the following example:

Inquistor w/terminator armor joins a GK terminator squad and goes into DS reserve. According to Rites of Teleortation, the GK termies are entitled to start rolling on turn one to arrive from DS reserve. Since the Inq is now a part of that unit and must arrive from reserves at the same time, as per the IC rule, he gains the benefit of Rites and Deep Strikes along with termies.

Please keep in mind that Rites of Teleportation is not a special rule. It is a command benefit and therefore not subject to the IC rules concerning special rules. Rites is a benefit that is conferred on to the unit as a bonus for organizing into a particular detachment, and according to the IC special rule, the Inquisitor is now a part of that unit for all rules purposes, which would seem to indicate command benefits unless otherwise noted. Since Rites doesn't specifically state that units must be comprised wholly of models from that detachment in order to benefit, there's nothing that directly disallows the use of Rites for a unit that also includes an IC.

I will say, just again, how much I dispose that whole 'for all Rule purposes' wording....

Zimko wrote:
There seems to be a lack of understanding in how units and IC joining units work. The rules are very specific that an IC becomes part of the unit he/she joins for all rules purposes. Therefore, if the unit that an IC join has a rule granted by it's detachment then it still has that rule and can still do it.

At no point is the IC being granted that rule. It may be benefiting from the rule because the unit it is part of is benefiting but the IC does not have the rule. The only time an IC doesn't benefit from rules granted to a unit it joins is when the rule specifically says so (Infiltrate, deep strike and such).

There absolutely is. You can't just read the first part of a rule entry and ignore the rest. Rigel keeps quoting that an IC becomes part of a unit for all rules purposes as though that validates his stance., but in same entry under IC on the same page in the BRB it further clarifies exactly how ICs interact with special rules which completely invalidates his stance.

At no point is the IC being granted that rule. It does not benefit from the special rule because it does not have it and it is not conferred, and if the usage of that special rule requires all models in the unit to have it, then having a model in the unit without that rule makes the unit unable to make use of it.
You have the last part backwards; the only time an IC does benefit from rules granted to a unit it joins is when the rule specifically says so.
This game is a permissive rules set. That does not mean you are permitted to do anything and everything. Quite the opposite, you are allowed to do nothing at all, until given permission to do so by specific rules.

As for the objective secured command benefit, no an attached IC would not have it. However the troops he's attached to would and could still make use of it.

"At no point is the IC being granted that rule."


This is correct. The IC is not being granted that rule. He doesnt need it.

The unit he is attatched to has it. The unit does not loose the command benefit just because a non grey knights IC joins them. You wont find a single rule in the book saying they do.


They are granted the rule from their formation, and never loose it due to attached characters. So I fail to see how they cant use it.

Are you saying somehow that because an attached IC cannot deep strike on turn 1 when he is a unit in and of himself, that he cant do it while attatched to a unit that can?

I see no rules saying that this is the case.

Deepstrike is a very bad choice to use as an argument there. Deepstrike very specifically states that all models in the unit must have the ability to deepstrike or the unit cannot deepstrike.

So yea, I would say that is the case and if you read the 'deepstrike' entry in the brb you will see a rule that is exactly the case.

OK I have a question here.

Let's say I take the Tyranid Formation "Living Tide". The Living Tide grants the Fear special rule. One of the units in the Living Tide is a Tyranid Prime (an IC for you non-Tyranid players). I join him to a unit of Warriors from a CAD.

Does the Prime still have the Fear special rule?

Yes

 Amiricle wrote:
There absolutely is. You can't just read the first part of a rule entry and ignore the rest. Rigel keeps quoting that an IC becomes part of a unit for all rules purposes as though that validates his stance., but in same entry under IC on the same page in the BRB it further clarifies exactly how ICs interact with special rules which completely invalidates his stance.

Except it doesn't. As I've pointed out multiple times now. Perhaps you've read my posts?
The unit does not have a special rule. The detachment does. I know that because it's a command benefit and units don't get those - detachments do.

Have you read your posts? Blaktoof has explained many many times why even talking about special rules as a detachment doesn't work either since the IC in question is not part of the detachment.

 Amiricle wrote:
Have you read your posts? Blaktoof has explained many many times why even talking about special rules as a detachment doesn't work either since the IC in question is not part of the detachment.

He doesn't need to be.

The GK unit is part of the detachment. Agreed?
The detachment has a special rule (command benefit) that allows units in the detachment to do magic. Agreed?
An IC joins the GK unit. This is legal. Agreed? (Contrary to what blaktoof said)
The GK unit is still part of the GK detachment, agreed?

What rule is forbidding the GK unit from benefiting from the detachment special rule?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
Have you read your posts? Blaktoof has explained many many times why even talking about special rules as a detachment doesn't work either since the IC in question is not part of the detachment.

He doesn't need to be.

The GK unit is part of the detachment. Agreed?

Agreed

The detachment has a special rule (command benefit) that allows units in the detachment to do magic. Agreed?

Agreed

An IC joins the GK unit. This is legal. Agreed? (Contrary to what blaktoof said)

Agreed

The GK unit is still part of the GK detachment, agreed?

Agreed

What rule is forbidding the GK unit from benefiting from the detachment special rule?

Page 166 BRB Independent Character Column 2, paragraph 3, Special Rules

 Amiricle wrote:

What rule is forbidding the GK unit from benefiting from the detachment special rule?

Page 166 BRB Independent Character Column 2, paragraph 3, Special Rules

Command Benefits are not the same as Special Rules, they are benefits conferred as a reward for using that detachment. The rule you are quoting does not address benefits (which is terminology used to distinguish it from special rules several times in the appropriate rules section), only special rules.

confoo22 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:

What rule is forbidding the GK unit from benefiting from the detachment special rule?

Page 166 BRB Independent Character Column 2, paragraph 3, Special Rules

Command Benefits are not the same as Special Rules, they are benefits conferred as a reward for using that detachment. The rule you are quoting does not address benefits (which is terminology used to distinguish it from special rules several times in the appropriate rules section), only special rules.

Except for the fact that they are.
Page 121 BRB 1st column, 4th section Command Benefits very first line.
And even more telling, also page 121 BRB, second columnFormations 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence after the comma, and again in the following sentence, and yet again in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph

 Amiricle wrote:
Except for the fact that they are.
Page 121 BRB 1st column, 4th section Command Benefits very first line.

Here is the line: This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

This clearly references benefits, not just special rules. Also, if you look at the CAD, you'll see that Objective Secured specifically calls it out as a special rule that is conferred on to troops. Rites does not use language even close to calling it a special rule.

 Amiricle wrote:
Except for the fact that they are.
Page 121 BRB 1st column, 4th section Command Benefits very first line.
And even more telling, also page 121 BRB, second columnFormations 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence after the comma, and again in the following sentence, and yet again in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph

The problem with this line of thinking is that any formation that has units containing ICs from other Factions will not benefit from their Command Benefits.

Would units from the Sentinels of Terra Supplement still be able to use Comrades-In-Arms if they had an allied Inquisitor? Would only the part of the unit from the Supplement be able to shoot? Can the unit not shoot at all now?

How do you roll for reserves with an Airborne Assault Formation from Tempestus? Units from that formation gain Strategic Intervention so a single roll is made for the Formation. Do allied ICs have to roll separately? Do they not come in at all? Does the unit come in piecemeal?

Or what about the classic Drop Pod Assault special rule? The rule applies to the unit contained within them, but that special rule isn't conferred to an IC. Therefore they cannot ride in Drop Pods at all (since they cannot be held in reserve and arrive on turn 1).

I appreciate your dedication to defending your position, but we assume your view of the Formation and/or unit-wide special rules that are not determined on a model-by-model basis, we break the game in several very important ways. I agree that they can avoid all of these issues by specifying (if at least one model in the unit) but perhaps it's been overlooked (or assumed to be not necessary) and maybe we'll see it in a FAQ/Errata. I even agree with you from a fluff perspective (why should random ICs gain the ability to teleport specially with GKs?), but I don't agree with you from a rules perspective. I listed 3 examples and there will be many more formations that will come out over the next few months/years. Will all of them preclude the inclusion of ICs? I seriously doubt it.

DoW

Wow, you really insist on being this obstinate? Fine, continue reading the Independent Character entry page 166 Column 2, section 5 Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects paragraph 3 (2nd last one), it uses that specific word, benefits, and states that they are not shared.

But seriously guys, if you have to fight this hard to make something work and quibble about such minutiae, you are obviously trying to gain an unfair advantage. Even if this was viable, and not really all that powerful if it were, allowing it would set a precedence for things that would be seriously OP.

 Amiricle wrote:
Independent Character entry page 166 Column 2, section 5 Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects paragraph 3 (2nd last one), it uses that specific word, benefits, and states that they are not shared.

That passage references what happens if an IC joins a unit after it has become the target of an effect. If you go two paragraphs up, it states that if an IC has joined a unit before it becomes the target of an effect, then the IC is also effected, even if it leaves the unit.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
Except for the fact that they are.
Page 121 BRB 1st column, 4th section Command Benefits very first line.
And even more telling, also page 121 BRB, second columnFormations 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence after the comma, and again in the following sentence, and yet again in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph

The problem with this line of thinking is that any formation that has units containing ICs from other Factions will not benefit from their Command Benefits.

That is correct. They would not unless that specific command benefit stated that it would do so.

Would units from the Sentinels of Terra Supplement still be able to use Comrades-In-Arms if they had an allied Inquisitor? Would only the part of the unit from the Supplement be able to shoot? Can the unit not shoot at all now?

No idea, I have no knowledge of that supplement.

How do you roll for reserves with an Airborne Assault Formation from Tempestus? Units from that formation gain Strategic Intervention so a single roll is made for the Formation. Do allied ICs have to roll separately? Do they not come in at all? Does the unit come in piecemeal?

Allied IC would have to roll separately or they'd come in piecemeal as the allied IC does not have these abilities. The Red Skull Kommandos is a similar formation.

Or what about the classic Drop Pod Assault special rule? The rule applies to the unit contained within them, but that special rule isn't conferred to an IC. Therefore they cannot ride in Drop Pods at all (since they cannot be held in reserve and arrive on turn 1).

I appreciate your dedication to defending your position, but we assume your view of the Formation and/or unit-wide special rules that are not determined on a model-by-model basis, we break the game in several very important ways. I agree that they can avoid all of these issues by specifying (if at least one model in the unit) but perhaps it's been overlooked (or assumed to be not necessary) and maybe we'll see it in a FAQ/Errata. I even agree with you from a fluff perspective (why should random ICs gain the ability to teleport specially with GKs?), but I don't agree with you from a rules perspective. I listed 3 examples and there will be many more formations that will come out over the next few months/years. Will all of them preclude the inclusion of ICs? I seriously doubt it.

DoW

We break the game in many more ways by ignoring the fact that if a specific command benefit was intended to affect other models and/or units outside the formation, it would specifically say so. From a rules perspective, it is RAI and RAW, so I don't see why you would be arguing it anyway. You are creating an issue they tried to avoid with the Independent Character entry on how special rules never confer unless they state that they do.

Read again the Formation description in the BRB. Formations are a special type of detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefield. Note the word 'specific' They are by their very design exclusive to the inclusion of random IC's. If particular IC was meant to be in a particular formation, he would be listed under the formations units listing. Denying these shenanigans is both consistent with fluff and rules.
We keep looking at can'ts, so here's some can's:

Wolf Guard Void Claws
Co-ordinated Assault: As long as at least one model from this formation is still alive and on the table, the controlling player may re-roll any reserves.(a command benefit this formation has that anything else in your army can use.)

Blitz-Brigade
Scout Any unit you put in one of these battlewagons gets to scout ahead as per transport and scout rules)

Ragnar's Claws
Eager to Impress Any unit from this formation within 12" of Ragnar Blackmane have the zealot special rule. (Zealot confers, so any IC attached to any of the 4 units would gain zealot as well)

Mogrok's Bossboyz
Very Kunnin' Before deployment, the controlling player may nominate up to D3 friendly ork units. These units gain the Acute Senses and Outflank special rules. (Note how it says friendly ork units and not units in the formation as most command benefits do)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

confoo22 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
Independent Character entry page 166 Column 2, section 5 Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects paragraph 3 (2nd last one), it uses that specific word, benefits, and states that they are not shared.

That passage references what happens if an IC joins a unit after it has become the target of an effect. If you go two paragraphs up, it states that if an IC has joined a unit before it becomes the target of an effect, then the IC is also effected, even if it leaves the unit.

That doesn't help either since a detachments benefits are applied during list creation before a game even begins. As such they are in place and in effect when the game starts before the IC has the opportunity to join the unit.

 Amiricle wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

confoo22 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
Independent Character entry page 166 Column 2, section 5 Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects paragraph 3 (2nd last one), it uses that specific word, benefits, and states that they are not shared.

That passage references what happens if an IC joins a unit after it has become the target of an effect. If you go two paragraphs up, it states that if an IC has joined a unit before it becomes the target of an effect, then the IC is also effected, even if it leaves the unit.

That doesn't help either since a detachments benefits are applied during list creation before a game even begins. As such they are in place and in effect when the game starts before the IC has the opportunity to join the unit.

Actually, I would argue that the unit isn't the target of the effect until turn one, when you begin to roll for it to come in or, at the very least, the unit would be the target of the effect when it's put into deep strike reserves, both of which would come after you've joined the IC to the unit.

Regardless, I don't even really feel that the rule you're referencing fits this situation either. This particular command benefit isn't an ongoing effect since it occurs once at a specified time and is immediately resolved when the unit deep strikes, and that passage is obviously meant more to cover what happens if an IC leaves or joins a unit on the tabletop in the course of a game after it has been the target of a special rule or psychic power, not before the game has even begun.

It appears that several players either lack reading comprehension skills or are deliberately ignoring key sentences within both the BRB and the GK codex.

When an IC joins a unit (perhaps a unit which is part of a detachment which differs from the allied detachment the IC is from), it quite clearly states that it is then considered part of that unit for all rules purposes.

The rites of teleportation rule confers a specific command benefit (which is a separate and distinct entity from a special rule) to units that are part of the NSF detachment. Regardless of the presence of ICs, the unit remains part of the NSF detachment and gains the command benefits. The ICs are part of said unit, ergo they also gain these same benefits. Note that the IC in question MUST already have the Deep Strike USR because it is NOT conferred by the unit.

By the same token, an IC from the NSF detachment may wind up joining an allied, non-NSF detachment unit. It will become part of that unit and therefore lose any command benefits from the NSF detachment, but gain any applicable benefits from the allied detachment (if any).

In short, these detachment benefits are applied at a unit level, not on a per model basis, so arguing about the particular detachment identity of an IC within a unit belonging to another detachment is totally irrelevant to the rule in question. This is why rigeld (who I by no means always agree with) insists that certain other parties are making straw man arguments. In this matter, I am in complete agreement with him.

The unit retains the command benefit. Period.

Of course you would. Ignore any rule that contradicts your waac powergaming, right?

You're grasping at straws here. The IC Special Rules entry should have ended this discussion, but you keep trying to 'game' the system for an unintended advantage.
Regardless, lets play one more time since you refuse to see that a command benefit is a special rule. Is it an effect? Yes, it does something to alter the unit. Is it ongoing? Again, yes, its ongoing from before the game starts, till after the game ends (It doesn't lose the ability, it just can't use it anymore)(And as a pre-emptive, even if we agree the ability is lost after use, it is still ongoing - in will be 'going' from the time the list is created until the time it deepstrikes). (Even if an effect lasted for a single action, it is ongoing while that action is being resolved) Is it therefore an ongoing effect? Inarguably, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fachxphyre wrote:
It appears that several players either lack reading comprehension skills or are deliberately ignoring key sentences within both the BRB and the GK codex.

When an IC joins a unit (perhaps a unit which is part of a detachment which differs from the allied detachment the IC is from), it quite clearly states that it is then considered part of that unit for all rules purposes.

How incredibly ironic to call someone out for doing something you do in the following statement. You can't just read that sentence and then skip and ignore the rest of the rules entry, specifically the section on IC and Special Rules.

The rites of teleportation rule confers a specific command benefit (which is a separate and distinct entity from a special rule) to units that are part of the NSF detachment. Regardless of the presence of ICs, the unit remains part of the NSF detachment and gains the command benefits. The ICs are part of said unit, ergo they also gain these same benefits. Note that the IC in question MUST already have the Deep Strike USR because it is NOT conferred by the unit.

Again doing something you accuse others of doing. Read the Command Benefits and Formations section. Command benefits are special rules. The IC in question may be in said unit, that was never in question, he may not however be in the detachment or formation if he cam from a different one. Each model may belong to only 1 detachment.

By the same token, an IC from the NSF detachment may wind up joining an allied, non-NSF detachment unit. It will become part of that unit and therefore lose any command benefits from the NSF detachment, but gain any applicable benefits from the allied detachment (if any).

In short, these detachment benefits are applied at a unit level, not on a per model basis, so arguing about the particular detachment identity of an IC within a unit belonging to another detachment is totally irrelevant to the rule in question. This is why rigeld (who I by no means always agree with) insists that certain other parties are making straw man arguments. In this matter, I am in complete agreement with him.

Models and/or units do not lose their command benefits in such a way unless a specific effect states that they do.

The unit retains the command benefit. Period.

Oh. Period. Such exclamation with your punctuation. Too bad its still wrong according to RaW and RaI (cause, c'mon anything you have to twist, bend and shoehorn though so many rules was clearly not intended, even if it were possible)

Allied IC would have to roll separately or they'd come in piecemeal as the allied IC does not have these abilities. The Red Skull Kommandos is a similar formation.

That doesn't make sense.

Are you saying the IC would then be forcibly detached from the Unit after rolling for reserves? At some arbitrary point during the Reserve Roll process? Where in the Rules does it say that this is possible and how does it give you permission to do so?

The entire Formation MUST roll a single reserve roll. If you roll separately for the IC, you have broken the rules for attaching ICs to units. If you roll separately for the Unit, you have broken the rules for the Formation.

The only recourse is to roll for the entire formation, assuming that the IC benefits from the Command Benefit by virtue of being attached to a unit that is part of the Formation. It is the least game-breaking of the options and follows in line with the logic behind Allies, ICs, and Formations that GW has been working towards since the beginning of 6th.

You might not want it to be true, but this is the way the game is going. I'm resistant to change as much as the next guy, but this way of thinking is something that won't make you any friends and will make you look foolish at tournaments. Of course it's up to you how you interpret the rules, but I don't think you're in the majority.

DoW

the least game-breaking option would be to not attach an IC to a unit in that formation. As those special rules are specific to that formation, a separate IC would not have access to them, so if the formation enters in a way that the IC could not, then he would be left behind. Some things can't be done, like say having an IC join a 10 man squad of Wolf Guard and still be able to squeeze them into their rhino. You either choose to have them walk on or don't attach the IC so they may drive on.

Fluffwise, & logically the rules for formations do make sense. Formations are very specific groupings (cite BrB) that are renowned for certain tactics and traits. Think of it this way, You have a US Navy Seal unit known to be exceptional in their ability to enter a combat zone practically invisibly. Say their general forces them to take a naval officer who's never been off a ship before. He'd give away their position every time they moved and as such they'd lose their infiltrate command benefit.
Or just in case you get hung up on infiltrate, say you have a squad known for dropping from aircraft and getting into position in seconds is forced to take an army commander who's never airdropped before. Their effectiveness is going to be compromised unless they leave him behind.

They're specific to the formation, and that benefit applies to all units from that formation. While attached the IC is not a unit, but part of one. Denying the unit the benefit is breaking a file either no allowance to do so.

Your notes that others arguing the actual rules are either clutching, rules lawyering or Waac power gaming have been noted, and reported.

 Amiricle wrote:

The detachment has a special rule (command benefit) that allows units in the detachment to do magic. Agreed?

Agreed

What rule is forbidding the GK unit from benefiting from the detachment special rule?

Page 166 BRB Independent Character Column 2, paragraph 3, Special Rules

How does a rule discussing unit special rules apply to detachment rules?
Nothing in that paragraph refers to detachment rules (command benefits) which you agreed were at play (not unit special rules).

 Amiricle wrote:
Of course you would. Ignore any rule that contradicts your waac powergaming, right?

Believing a rule works a certain way that differs from your opinion does not make someone waac, and I'm pretty sure the consensus is that someone who plays GKs these days is hardly a power gamer. Quit being unnecessarily insulting.

You're grasping at straws here. The IC Special Rules entry should have ended this discussion, but you keep trying to 'game' the system for an unintended advantage.

The special rules section does NOT apply here. Special rules are a distinct and different mechanic from command benefits. I've already demonstrated where it makes a distinction in the Command Benefits section for Detachments and pointed out that in the case of a command benefit giving a special rule, it is specifically called out as a special rule

Regardless, lets play one more time since you refuse to see that a command benefit is a special rule. Is it an effect? Yes, it does something to alter the unit. Is it ongoing? Again, yes, its ongoing from before the game starts, till after the game ends (It doesn't lose the ability, it just can't use it anymore)(And as a pre-emptive, even if we agree the ability is lost after use, it is still ongoing - in will be 'going' from the time the list is created until the time it deepstrikes). (Even if an effect lasted for a single action, it is ongoing while that action is being resolved) Is it therefore an ongoing effect? Inarguably, yes.

Rites is really not an ongoing effect since an ongoing effect is, wait for it, ongoing. It occurs once either when the unit deep strikes or when they're placed into deep strike reserves. You can't really say it's ongoing because that benefit isn't activated for a unit put into regular reserves, so at a certain point it needs to be switched on. One could also say that since it benefits all units placed into deep strike reserves there's no real "target" of the effect. You could even argue that that particular rule does not apply here since it's meant to cover what happens when an IC leaves or joins a unit during play, not an IC that is part of a unit still in reserves.

Too bad its still wrong according to RaW and RaI (cause, c'mon anything you have to twist, bend and shoehorn though so many rules was clearly not intended, even if it were possible)

The funny thing is that YOU'RE the one twisting and turning here. You're coming up with rules that have a tenuous link to your argument at best, presenting them as the end of the discussion, and then insulting anyone who doesn't immediately agree that you're right. I'm sorry man, but you're really just not laying down a convincing argument here.

 Amiricle wrote:

Fluffwise, & logically the rules for formations do make sense. Formations are very specific groupings (cite BrB) that are renowned for certain tactics and traits. Think of it this way, You have a US Navy Seal unit known to be exceptional in their ability to enter a combat zone practically invisibly. Say their general forces them to take a naval officer who's never been off a ship before. He'd give away their position every time they moved and as such they'd lose their infiltrate command benefit.
Or just in case you get hung up on infiltrate, say you have a squad known for dropping from aircraft and getting into position in seconds is forced to take an army commander who's never airdropped before. Their effectiveness is going to be compromised unless they leave him behind.

If you wanna give a fluff reason, the Grey Knight NSF commander has asked his good friend... a Librarian that used to be part of his force... to join one of his unit for the assault. That Librarian knows the ropes or can at least follow along and teleports into battle with the unit he's attached to.

FORGE DAT NARRATIVE!!!

Well it just boils down to the fact that you refuse to see that command benefits are special rules then even though they are called exactly that. Saying that the word benefits is used in the in that paragraph and that you can't call them effects therefore giving you free reign to apply them however you feel best is twisting the raw and rai.
Some food for thought, I noticed that on a lot of those formations I looked at to give some positive examples, specifically the Tempestus ones and the newest Sanctus Reach ones, the benefits listed for the formations aren't even titled "Command Benefits". They are titled "Special Rules". If GW can use the terms interchangeably then so should you.

 Amiricle wrote:
Well it just boils down to the fact that you refuse to see that command benefits are special rules then even though they are called exactly that. Saying that the word benefits is used in the in that paragraph and that you can't call them effects therefore giving you free reign to apply them however you feel best is twisting the raw and rai.

They may be special rules.
The rules you're relying on calls out unit special rules. You've agreed that this is a detachment special rule, not a unit special rule. Why are you attempting to apply a rule that only cares about unit special rules to something that isn't a unit special rule?

Some food for thought, I noticed that on a lot of those formations I looked at to give some positive examples, specifically the Tempestus ones and the newest Sanctus Reach ones, the benefits listed for the formations aren't even titled "Command Benefits". They are titled "Special Rules". If GW can use the terms interchangeably then so should you.

I am. They're detachment special rules, not unit ones. Read the rule you're citing.

Detachment special rules are applied to the units in the detachment. If your other IC isn't in the detachment, he doesn't get the rule. And we've gone full circle again....

 Amiricle wrote:
Well it just boils down to the fact that you refuse to see that command benefits are special rules then even though they are called exactly that. Saying that the word benefits is used in the in that paragraph and that you can't call them effects therefore giving you free reign to apply them however you feel best is twisting the raw and rai.

I'm refusing to see them as special rules because special rules are distinct from command benefits. There is simply no place that Command Benefits are solely referred to as special rules, I'm sorry, but there's not. The rule for command benefits says that they are either special rules or benefits received by units organized into that detachment, which demonstrates that that there are two types of bonuses gained from Detachments. Furthermore, if Rites is a special rule, why doesn't the command benefit section specifically say "All units have the Rites of Teleportation special rule" the way that Objective Secured or literally any other benefit that confers a special rule does? Also, I didn't say that they weren't effects, I said that they weren't ongoing effects, but even if they were I pointed out that the timing and targeting are debatable at best.

And I'd like to point out that you're doing the same thing in that you are refusing to see them as anything other than a special rule, probably because that's the only thing that's propping up your argument, so I would stop calling the kettle black if I were you. You also have not really pointed to a rule that clearly and definitively demonstrated that command benefits are only to be considered special rules while I have at least provided examples showing where there is a distinction made between a special rule and a benefit.

Some food for thought, I noticed that on a lot of those formations I looked at to give some positive examples, specifically the Tempestus ones and the newest Sanctus Reach ones, the benefits listed for the formations aren't even titled "Command Benefits". They are titled "Special Rules". If GW can use the terms interchangeably then so should you.

This is what I mean when I say that you're making these tenuous claims. Formations are a unique type of detachment governed by similar but different rules. If you want to start a thread as to whether or not formations have special rules versus command benefits, be my guest, but that does not apply to this discussion, which is whether or not Command Benefits are special rules. Formations don't have command benefits, so however they are organized doesn't apply to this thread.

 Amiricle wrote:
Detachment special rules are applied to the units in the detachment.

But it's still a detachment special rule, not a unit special rule.

If your other IC isn't in the detachment, he doesn't get the rule. And we've gone full circle again....

He doesn't. Never said he did. I've literally never argued that. It doesn't matter.

His.
Unit.
Does.

amricle, you are wasting your time.

many of the posters in this thread will never concede even if they are wrong, and its obvious they refuse to read the section regarding rules for detachments, or acknowledge the section on ICs joining units and how special rules confer. Most of them cannot even read the special rule "rites of teleportation" they are discussing properly as they have not shown the ability to see that the special rule is given to "models from the detachment" and that the special rule references "units from the detachment may do this" Then they go on to say "but an IC is a member of the unit for all purposes" and assume this means the IC gains special rules the unit had before it(which as per the section on ICs and special rules it does not), all the while pretending it also reads the IC is a member of the detachment for all intents and purposes despite the RAW not saying that, and clearly stating that an model / unit may never be part of more than one detachment.

and to the person saying they are unit special rules, they are not.

they are model special rules.

the special rules are given to models in that detachment before the game begins. joining the unit does not make you a model from that detachment.

COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

as most of them do not even bother to discuss the rules, or cite rules, their arguments are often pointless and hard to discuss with them as they themselves are ignorant of the actual RAW and refuse to look at it or discuss it beyond the cherry picked parts that they feel validate their claim.

regardless if command benefits = special rules (they do) an IC joined to a unit does not count as a model from that detachment, and does not gain the command benefit. if the command benefit then within its rules does not state it extends to other models, it does not extend to other models.

at best they are simply ignorant of the actual rules, at worst they are trolls.

certain posters in this thread flagrantly violate the following tenets under a false guise of discussion:


this thread honestly should just be locked as there is no actual discussion of the rules in most of the posts, and when there is it is often just replied to with "your wrong because it says units" when clearly it sames "units from this detachment" then if you dare bring up detachment rules your breaking rules by discussing things they never said, because they refuse to state the actual rules. so you get into this wonderful loop of discussing cherry picked non-rules which of course makes no sense to do.

blaktoof wrote:
amricle, you are wasting your time.

many of the posters in this thread will never concede even if they are wrong, and its obvious they refuse to read the section regarding rules for detachments, or acknowledge the section on ICs joining units and how special rules confer.

they are trolls.

Having a position and arguing in favor of it doesn't make someone a troll. Having an opinion and openly insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you does.

And I'd concede that I were wrong if someone could prove that I was, but i have yet to see that on this thread. Amiricle has yet to offer any sort of concrete proof that command benefits are only ever to be considered special rules that are subject to the special rules section of the IC rules. His response to me pointing out where the rules have made a distinction has only been something along the lines of "Well, they're special rules because they are and anyone who disagrees with that is trying to be a rules lawyer because they're waac power gamers."

you claimed command benefits are unit rules, they are not. you were wrong.

COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PM me when one of the "I can do what I want because I want to" posters figures out how an IC count as a model from a different detachment.

Or when the "rites of teleportation" rules entry magically changes in every ebook/written book to say something like "any model joined to a unit from this detachment that has this benefit can instead of rolling for reserves turn 2.."

until then there is no actual RAW argument that you can do this.

So, when the rule states it is unit based, and is more specific than the general rile you're quoting, we just ignore the way the game is written?

blaktoof wrote:
you claimed command benefits are unit rules, they are not. you were wrong.

COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

Uh, except I'm not. Here, I'm going to try to put as much emphasis as I can:

This section of the Detachment lists any special rules OR BENEFITS that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

Those two words clearly demonstrate that Command benefits can be something besides special rules. I just don't see why you keep ignoring that other than the bolster your own argument. For a command benefit to be a special rule under the section of the IC rule that you continue to accuse others of ignoring, then it needs to be specifically listed as a special rule. Look at the CAD in the BRB: Objective Secured is a special rule. We know this because it specifically says that troops gain the Objective Secured special rule. The command benefit that lets your warlord re-roll his trait, however, is not a special rule, it's a benefit you gain from selecting that detachment. They are two different things. So when the unit from the detachment gains that benefit, any IC attached, as part of that unit, also gains that benefit.

If you can explain how benefits and special rules are the same other than just knowing in your heart of hearts that they are both only ever to be considered special rules, then please do.

I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

Where in this thread are we talking about formations, which have a separate set of rules? Let's keep it focused on the actual topic at hand, which is whether or not Command Benefits are the same as special rules, which are then subject to the IC rule distinction. You have yet to demonstrate that in a detachment with Command Benefits they are meant to only ever be special rules.

And don't forget that Tempestus was a 6th edition book, maybe in 7th they decided that formations don't get command benefits for whatever reason, maybe to differentiate between them and full fledged detachments. One instance of a phrase changed, between editions, in something different than what we're talking about, hardly makes your argument for you. There's still no definitive rule defining Command Benefits as Special Rules or else I'm sure you would have presented it by now.

 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

Formations are not the exact same thing as detachments, and don't give command benefits. So before comparing apples to fruit compote, try to understand the difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

Formations are not the exact same thing as detachments, and don't give command benefits. So before comparing apples to fruit compote, try to understand the difference.

other than things like the formation "ork warband" which lists 3 command benefits...

blaktoof wrote:

the special rules are given to models in that detachment before the game begins. joining the unit does not make you a model from that detachment.

COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

CORRECT. This is something I haven't argued. At all. Now, let's look at the Command Benefit in question, shall we? (something you don't like doing).

Rites of Teleportation:
Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn
two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep
Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one. These units will arrive from Deep Strike
Reserve on turn one on the roll of 3+. In addition, all units from this Detachment can
both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike
Reserve.

Hmmm.. that doesn't mention models. Damn.
It mentions units. Does that make it a unit special rule? Oh - no, it doesn't because the Command Benefit is a detachment special rule. Gotcha.

as most of them do not even bother to discuss the rules, or cite rules, their arguments are often pointless and hard to discuss with them as they themselves are ignorant of the actual RAW and refuse to look at it or discuss it beyond the cherry picked parts that they feel validate their claim.

Pot, kettle. You keep assuming that I think a model has to switch detachments, not willing to address your incorrect arguments or the fact that I've never said that.

certain posters in this thread flagrantly violate the following tenets under a false guise of discussion:

Please, report me. Report anyone you feel has violated the rules - I encourage it. As should you.

this thread honestly should just be locked as there is no actual discussion of the rules in most of the posts, and when there is it is often just replied to with "your wrong because it says units" when clearly it sames "units from this detachment" then if you dare bring up detachment rules your breaking rules by discussing things they never said, because they refuse to state the actual rules. so you get into this wonderful loop of discussing cherry picked non-rules which of course makes no sense to do.

Except that's not at all what I said. Ever.

It says units from the detachment. Congrats! We agree!
Now - is the GK unit a unit from the detachment? Yes or no - it should be simple. I can prove "Yes" using rules. You have to prove "No" using rules for your stance to be correct.

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

from the above.

command benefits are benefits or special rules given to models in a detachment, for adhering to a detachments unit organization.

lets look at the above RAW,

Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules

interesting so the command benefits; ideal mission commander and objective secured are special rules.

lets look at ideal mission commander.

Ideal Mission Commander: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Trait table.

fascinating.

it doesn't state in the rules for ideal mission commander that it is a special rule, however under command benefits it is called out as being a special rule.

therefore ideal mission command which is a command benefit is a special rule as per command benefits and the example of ideal mission commander given.

therefore command benefits are special rules, as per the RAW.

Is the GK unit a unit from the GK detachment?

YES!

is an IC from outside of the NSF detachment a member of its detachment?

YES!

is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

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

so we have a unit that contains special rules from the IC, and special rules from the unit which do not overlap as the command benefits are given to models from the detachment they are part of, and are special rules. refer to ICs and special rules.

The rule in question is required to SPECIFY it extends to all models in the unit if a model has it, it does not.

further the rule states "two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Formation that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one."

As per

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

and formations = detachment the unit is no longer a unit from the NSF detachment, it is now a unit from the NSF formation with a model attached that does not have the special rule of the nsf formation, as per the RAW, and the special rule does not specify it extends to other models e.g. -stubborn, shrouded. The unit is no longer just a unit from the NSF formation because one of the models attached to it is not from that formation, it is now a unit that has parts from the NSF formation, and parts from a CAD or some other formation.

There is no specific permission for the rule to extend to models attached to it that are not part of its formation, and the IC may count as a member of the unit, but it is not a member of its formation even when attached.

because it does not change the formation it came from, and does not have the option to be part of more than one formation.

and there is no permission to use rites of teleportation on models that are not from the formation.

blaktoof wrote:
lets look at the above RAW,

Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules

interesting

so the command benefits; ideal mission commander and objective secured are special rules.

Even if I was mistaken about the Ideal Commander rule that still doesn't change my base argument: Command Benefits can be special rules OR benefits. Ideal Commander is specifically called out as a special rule in that line, but there's nothing, literally nothing, that specifically states that Command Benefits are always considered special rules, subject to all rules governing special rules. You have presented no direct evidence or rule that says so, only conjecture and speculation based on opinion. The rule concerning command benefits specifically says that they can be special rules or benefits, not that they must be considered both.

therefore command benefits are special rules, as per the RAW.

Sorry, no. You're making a leap of logic there that goes like so: "This one particular example says it's this way, therefore all instances must be that way too." That type of argument is actually called a plea to ignorance. Ideal Commander may be a special rule in that instance, but RAW Command Benefits are either special rules or benefits. And just to be clear, the definition of or is a conjunction used to link alternatives.

benefits or special rules, also could mean another way to call benefits is special rules.

considering the ONLY example given for what command benefits are shows both as being special rules is pretty telling.

your statement is highly misleading as it implies there are many examples contrary and I selected one which supports my claim, which is not the case. There are zero, 0, examples that they are different and I stated the ONLY example which shows they are the same.

Which is proof that they are the same, do you have any proof anywhere that they are different?

regardless the command benefit is not granted to units but models.

so the models in the formation have "rites of teleportation" from being models from that detachment, given to them before the game even begins.

which states that units from the formation may do x.

reread what I said above, no point in cut and pasting.

blaktoof wrote:
is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

So the GK unit changes its detachment membership? What detachment is it a member of?
Please support every statement with a rules quote as you're way out of bounds here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
so the models in the formation have "rites of teleportation" from being models from that detachment, given to them before the game even begins.

Then the rule does nothing. RoT doesn't allow models to do anything, it allows units that are in a detachment to do things.

did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

obviously every model in it is not from all 3, and obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

if there was a special rule one of them had from their detachment that affect units from detachment x, it would affect only those models and not the others joined unless the rule specifically states it affects the unit if a model has it, or if a unit contains any model with this special rule as per stubborn as per shrouded, etc.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

obviously you can still take a GK IC from that detachment, attach it to a teleporting unit from that detachment and have it do something. or even just have the teleporting unit without an attached IC there and do something.

as has also been pointed out in this thread there are other armies/models that let you DEEPSTRIKE turn 1 so you could combine them as attached units with the GKS and still deepstrike both turn 1 as they both have rules allowing them to do so.

My proof is that they are different is the opening line of command benefits, which lists them as two different types of bonuses: benefits or special rules. There is no rule directly contradicting this, even your example doesn't since it's not actually a rule and is specific to the CAD in the book.

The Rites of Teleportation specifically says it's granted to units, not models. If it said models then you might be right, but it doesn't, and since ICs are part of the unit...

Units in the Detachment benefit from Rites of Teleportation, but there's nothing to indicate that it's specifically a special rule that they have.


Look Blaktoof, I get that you're going to stick to your guns on this one and you're not going to convince me by posting the same argument over and over, so I'm done arguing with you about this for now. I'll just end by saying that until there's a FAQ or Errata that specifically says that Command Benefits are only ever to be considered special rules for all rules purposes, I just don't see how either side can claim complete victory in this argument. It's something that's going to be decided by individual TO's and house ruled until GW officially weighs in. Until then, dakka posts are just bluster and ways to kill time at work (which I do appreciate on its own merits). We'll just have to agree to disagree unless we were across the table from each other, in which case I'd probably call for a roll-off.

Again you totally ignore the point. Sanctus reach is brand new. The terms are used interchangeably.
There are several cases where they are shown to be the same. Blackfoot demonstrated another. There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.

blaktoof wrote:did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

Well... yes. When you said

Is the GK unit a unit from the GK detachment?

YES!

And then followed that up with

is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

Then absolutely the detachment has changed. It was, and now it's not (after attaching).

blaktoof wrote:the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

The Ork Horde detachment.

obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

So you never said the detachment changes, you're just saying it can't stay the same. Is that about right?
And why can't the models that join count as members of the unit they join for all rules purposes? I mean, the IC rules require that - literally.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

Read what I actually wrote and responded to. You said the command benefits rule is model based. If that's true, RoT does nothing as it is a detachment rule that affects units in that detachment - and never mentions the word model.


Ever figured out what rules were broken way back in the post I kept quoting? Need me to requote it so you can finally respond?

 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.

Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.

blaktoof wrote:
did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

obviously every model in it is not from all 3, and obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

if there was a special rule one of them had from their detachment that affect units from detachment x, it would affect only those models and not the others joined unless the rule specifically states it affects the unit if a model has it, or if a unit contains any model with this special rule as per stubborn as per shrouded, etc.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

obviously you can still take a GK IC from that detachment, attach it to a teleporting unit from that detachment and have it do something. or even just have the teleporting unit without an attached IC there and do something.

as has also been pointed out in this thread there are other armies/models that let you DEEPSTRIKE turn 1 so you could combine them as attached units with the GKS and still deepstrike both turn 1 as they both have rules allowing them to do so.

I think the crux of the matter is that you believe the detachment special rule (yes I agree it is a special rule) is given to units in the detachment so that those units have the special rule.

COMMAND BENEFITS This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

Note that the Objective Secured special rule is not given to any units in the detachment. It is a detachment level special rule that units in the detachment benefit from. So the IC rules about special rules do not apply because the unit doesn't have the special rule, the detachment does.

confoo22 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.

Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.

I haven't ignored it. I have, in fact, quoted it. There are many precedents for command benefits either directly being or being interchangeable with special rules. There is no precedence for them to be used differently to allow the "or benefits" clause to stand.
A command benefit that works differently than normal special rules? Warlord trait.

 Amiricle wrote:

confoo22 wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.

Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.

I haven't ignored it. I have, in fact, quoted it. There are many precedents for command benefits either directly being or being interchangeable with special rules. There is no precedence for them to be used differently to allow the "or benefits" clause to stand.
A command benefit that works differently than normal special rules? Warlord trait.

You are ignoring it. Basically you're saying that the "or benefits" part of that statement doesn't count and that people should only look at the first part of the sentence. And I'm sorry, but with a company like GW being infamous for copy pasting errors and leaving typos in their rules, you can't cite two examples (not "many") where a formation included the word command benefits instead of special rules as proof positive that command benefits in a detachment, which is still separate from a formation, are the exact same as special rules. There's simply no rule that flat out states that Command Benefits are always governed by the same restrictions as Special Rules, even if they're not listed as Special Rules. Your stance is a supposition based on speculation.

Another way to read it is the writer just telling the reader that the special rules you gain are beneficial. The term "or benefits" is not defined and as such is meaningless.

It is shown many times that command benefits are equal to special rules. It is not shown anywhere that they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I at least have some facts to draw on. Your entire stance is pure speculation on what "or benefits" might mean.

 Amiricle wrote:
Another way to read it is the writer just telling the reader that the special rules you gain are beneficial. The term "or benefits" is not defined and as such is meaningless.

It is shown many times that command benefits are equal to special rules. It is not shown anywhere that they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I at least have some facts to draw on. Your entire stance is pure speculation on what "or benefits" might mean.

So now there's debate that when a word is followed by "or" and then another word it might actually mean the same thing? And i'm not speculating, it's obvious that it is referencing Command Benefits that are not special rules.

The only fact you're presenting is that the words command benefits were used instead of special rules on two formations (and again, formations are not the same as detachments), however, that's not PROOF, which you have yet to produce.

other than the proof that was given of the only examples of command benefits being special rules, and the no proof given by anyone else that command benefits are something different than special rules.

Can anyone in this post please show where it lists command benefits and how they affect things, from the command benefits section? is there a magical book section you have to have a third eye to see that tells us how "benefits" interact with other rules, or models, or combine in units? The book has many sections, assault, psychic phase, shooting, choosing your army, special rules, etc. Yet no section on "benefits".

Some people should probably also post where "Detachment special rules" are separate from "special rules" I am guessing its near the section which tells us about "wargear special rules" and "army wide special rules" and "magical pony special rules" which of course do not exist because these are false constructs fabricated by people who have yet to put forth a valid claim that they can extend a special rule granted to models that affects units from that formation, extending to other models from different formations.

command benefits are special rules given to the models in the detachment. This is RAW.

and no

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?


The Ork Horde detachment.

the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

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

the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

there is no rule against models making up more than 1 detachment in a unit, but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment. there are also rules stating models belong to detachments, so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it. However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.

the models from detachment x have the detachment rules from x, but not y and z.

the models from detachment y have the detachment rules from y, but not x and z.

the models from detachment z have the detachment rules from z, but not x and y.

we know this because the command benefits are granted to models from the detachment they belong to.

if the special rule in question SPECIFICALLY states it may confer to other models in the unit, then it may. Otherwise it does not.

blaktoof wrote:

the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

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

the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

there is no rule against models making up more than 1 detachment in a unit, but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment. there are also rules stating models belong to detachments, so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it. However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.

So you're saying that a unit (a group of models) can have models in it from multiple detachments but gain none of the command benefits from those detachments because the unit is not part of a single detachment? But you quoted yourself that all units in your army must belong to a Detachment so how can this be? If all units are part of a Detachment then all units must gain Command Benefits from one of those detachments. But you're saying that this particular unit doesn't because some ICs joined it?

blaktoof wrote:
Some people should probably also post where "Detachment special rules" are separate from "special rules" I am guessing its near the section which tells us about "wargear special rules" and "army wide special rules" and "magical pony special rules" which of course do not exist because these are false constructs fabricated by people who have yet to put forth a valid claim that they can extend a special rule granted to models that affects units from that formation, extending to other models from different formations.

... Sigh.
Seriously. Address your arguments properly and not just to the wind.
When you quote a rule, as you have, such as:

Special Rules

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit.

You have to actually, I dunno, read the rules.
In this case, does he have different special rule from his unit? It's likely - GK and BA have many different rules (Aegis for example).
The issue here is that the unit does not have the rule "Rites of Teleportation". Ever.
Since the unit does not have the RoT rule, the IC rule I quoted cannot apply as you've tried to apply it.

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?


The Ork Horde detachment.

the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

Zimko wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

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

the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

there is no rule against models making up more than 1 detachment in a unit, but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment. there are also rules stating models belong to detachments, so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it. However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.

So you're saying that a unit (a group of models) can have models in it from multiple detachments but gain none of the command benefits from those detachments because the unit is not part of a single detachment? But you quoted yourself that all units in your army must belong to a Detachment so how can this be? If all units are part of a Detachment then all units must gain Command Benefits from one of those detachments. But you're saying that this particular unit doesn't because some ICs joined it?

cite permission to gain command benefits for models outside of a detachment.

and also that is not what i said.

I said if a unit has models from detachment x,y,z.

the models from detachment x have rules from x

the models from detachment y have rules form y

the models from detachment z have rules from z.

this is RAW straight from the section that has been quoted about 8 times now on command benefits.

there is no raw that when an IC joins a unit it takes on that units formation.

so if you have a unit of 10 models from x, that unit has 10 models with the special rule x. so the entire unit has special rule x.

if you join model y to unit x, model y has command benefits from detachment y, but does not have command benefits from detachment x as it is not a member of detachment x and command benefits are granted only to the models in them.

now you have a unit of 11 models. 1 has special rule y, the other 10 have special rule x. you can look at the section on special rules and ICs and figure out if special rule x or y transfer to the other models in the unit.

if you can find some RAW that joining a model to other models makes it a member of their detachment, or joining a unit to another unit makes it a member of their detachment as this has to be specifically stated, because there is a general rule:

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

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence

It's not.
Sure - it's a special rule. It's not a unit special rule, which is what the quote on page 166 addresses, so the quote from 166 doesn't apply.

Please. try again.

A unit can have IC's from any number of detachment, but it's constituent parts each still remain part of their original detachment. The constituent unit's models would all gain all rules that confer, but retain the ones that don't on each specific one.

I.e. IC from a detachment that gains zealot and twin linked weapons joins a combined arms troop unit. The troops would now have objective secured and zealot, the IC would gain nothing.

there is no such thing as a unit special rule.....

models have special rules.

models make up units.

if all the models in a unit have a special rule then it can be said the unit has a special rule, however there is still no such thing as a unit special rule.

some special rules require a unit to have at least one model with the special rule, some give the special rule just to the model that has it.

if an IC joins a unit of models that all have a special rule there is a specific RAW on how their rules interact, its been quoted about 8 times.

can you find somewhere RAW and cite that there is a such thing as a "unit special rule" and show us how this is different than a special rule?

the logic that is being port forth by many people is as ridiculous as saying "look I have an IC with EW, I joined him to another IC without it, now they both have EW."

Zimko wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

It's in response to me, but I'm not sure what he's saying here. Here's the wording of the rule again, first line for Command Benefits under the Detachments section:

This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

That sentence is not and/or, it's either/or. It is not inherently both, as it either provides the unit/models with a special rule (ie, Objective Secured), or provides the units/models with a benefit for being a part of the detachment (ie, Rites of Teleportation). It CAN be both, if the benefit is that you get a special rule, but that's no a given. People are trying to conflate the two as essentially being both sides of the same coin.

Amiricle wrote:A unit can have IC's from any number of detachment, but it's constituent parts each still remain part of their original detachment. The constituent unit's models would all gain all rules that confer, but retain the ones that don't on each specific one.

I.e. IC from a detachment that gains zealot and twin linked weapons joins a combined arms troop unit. The troops would now have objective secured and zealot, the IC would gain nothing.

He'd have Objective Secured since he's a member of a Troops unit...

blaktoof wrote:there is no such thing as a unit special rule.....

Actual rules disagree.

if all the models in a unit have a special rule then it can be said the unit has a special rule.

Citation required.

if an IC joins a unit of models that all have a special rule there is a specific RAW on how their rules interact, its been quoted about 8 times.

Yes - I've quoted it. It specifically says "the unit's special rules". Do you disagree with that?

can you find somewhere RAW and cite that there is a such thing as a "unit special rule" and show us how this is different than a special rule?

Well, a unit special rule is a special rule the unit has. A detachment special rule is a special rule that a detachment has.

the logic that is being port forth by many people is as ridiculous as saying "look I have an IC with EW, I joined him to another IC without it, now they both have EW.

No, it's not the same at all. I could explain if you actually cared, but I feel like you're trolling me so I won't.

confoo22 wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

It's in response to me, but I'm not sure what he's saying here. Here's the wording of the rule again, first line for Command Benefits under the Detachments section:

This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

That sentence is not and/or, it's either/or. It is not inherently both, as it either provides the unit/models with a special rule (ie, Objective Secured), or provides the units/models with a benefit for being a part of the detachment (ie, Rites of Teleportation). It CAN be both, if the benefit is that you get a special rule, but that's no a given. People are trying to conflate the two as essentially being both sides of the same coin.

while I agree it does not say "and/or" it also surely does not say "either/or"

so im not sure if your interpertation of RAI is really relavent, especially given the only examples for command benefits are specifically called out as special rules regardless if their own text says they are or not.

do you have any actual examples of command benefits which are stated to not be special rules, or somewhere where it states benefits are not special rules? even one?

It seems as if this argument has gone on more than long enough and has come down to trivial aspects of grammar.

Best to put it to bed now, I feel.