detachment rules are given to the units in the detachment prior to deployment.
the IC is not a member of the unit when it gains the rule.
some people will waffle on about how the IC is part of the detachment when it is in the unit, but this is after the rule is granted, and the IC is still not part of the detachment even then.
The IC obviously was not purchased as a Unit in that detachments FoC, and doesn't gain that detachments required faction.
You can have units that are made up of models from two or more detachments, with no model belonging to one detachment, but the entire unit is not solely from one singular detachment at that point.
for example- Ghazkull thrakka from an Ork horde Detachment LoW slot joins unit of boyz from Ork warband formation, they are one unit and he counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not count as a member of their detachment, nor a unit from their detachment. The unit has models from both detachments, that were separately given special rules from their own detachments before the game begins. In this example the unit is the same faction, wherein in the example of the NSF GK detachment, the IC attached is most likely not of the GK faction which is also required of units in that detachment on top of actually being purchased from that detachment, which the IC is clearly neither of those things.
the section on ICs has a ruling on how ICs joined to units with different special rules interact with that unit, the special rule has to explicitly state it extends to the whole unit if one model has it as per stealth/shrouded/stubborn
The reason why some people are siding with Detachment special rules conferring to attached ICs, and vis versa, has to do with how the current 7th Ed system lacks restrictive language while promoting inclusive language in a permissive rule set. As a permissive rule set, you are only able to do what you have been given permission to do. 7th Ed is missing entire sections of rules that use to exist in previous edition, yet still refers to those missing rules through implied consent rather than overt permission.
An example of this is the Reserves rule that combined units roll once for reserves. The implied permission is the a unit with an attached IC in a vehicle in Reserves would only roll one die for the entire combined unit to determine if the combined unit deploys together from Reserves on any given turn. Normally, Reserves rolls begin on turn 2, however, Rite of Teleportation allows a unit with this rule that is in Deep Strike Reserved to roll for deployment on turn 1 instead of turn 2. So, does the unit with Rites and an attached IC without Rites in a Deep Striking vehicle without Rites roll for deployment on turn 1 or turn 2?
Due to the lack of supporting language, permission has been given for the Rites unit to roll on turn 1, and permission has been given for the IC, unit, and vehicle to arrive together on a single die roll. Yet, language is lacking on how non-Detachment models interact with Detachment specific models other than the IC's "is a member of the unit for all rules purposes" clause. If the IC counts as a member of the unit, and the unit has a Detachment rule that allows the unit a specific ability, there is no language in the rules to prevent conference to the IC (or vis versa). Such language does exist for USRs, but no such language exists outside of USRs, and Detachment rules are not USRs.
This means that one of three paths can be taken to resolve this conflict:
1 - Detachment Rules are lost unless specific permission is given. This means that ObSec is lost if a non-CADIC joins a CAD Troop unit. Fortunately, we known this option is incorrect.
2 - Detachment Rules are not conferred without specific permission. This means that Drop Pod Assault will not confer to a Battle Brothers unit embarked on a Drop Pod. Fortunately, we know this option is incorrect, as well.
3 - Detachment Rules are conferred per the IC rules. This means that non-NSF ICs with Deep Strike attached to a Deep Striking NSF units will benefit from Rite of Teleportation. This option appears to be supported within the poorly written RAW of the BRB, and is not overtly overruled by a more specific rule elsewhere.
And that is the reason why people believe that rules such as Rites do confer to non-Detachment models (and vis versa). There are no rules that remove Detachment benefits when combining mixed Detachment units.
except the IC does not have the detachment benefit because it is not part of the unit when it is given.
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
from the rulebook, under detachments
also your examples are terrible, and here is why.
1- no one has stated rules are lost. If you join an IC to a unit where the IC does not have ob secured, and the unit does you have 1 model in the unit that does not have the special rule. Objective secured specifies a unit with this special rule. The unit now contains models that have the special rule and do not. NSF specifies units from this detachment. An attached IC will not have Rites of teleportation, and is not a unit from that detachment even when joined to a unit from that detachment, it is still a unit chosen from its own detachment. Claiming it is a unit from that detachment when joined means you are claiming it has changed detachments, as well as factions, as it was not purchased from the FoC of the NSF detachment, and is not faction greyknights which are required for units from that detachment. No rule lets the IC count as a member of that detachment, even if it is a member of the unit. Further as the special rule 'rites of teleportation' was granted before deployment, the IC does not have it listed on its roster, and there is no way to confer the special rule after prior to deployment.
2- Drop pod assault is a special rule of a vehicle not a detachment special rule, ICs cannot join vehicle units and the units embarked in them are not joined by the units in them. Furthermore the rule for drop pod assault says it affects embarked units. Not embarked units from this detachment.
3- You are just plain completely wrong on this. Detachment rules are given before deployment as per the raw for detachment rules, the IC that is not part of the detachment does not have the special rules/bonuses from being in a detachment they are not in added to their roster at this point. There is no other point of conferring bonuses/special rules from detachments. now if the special rule/bonus calls out specifically that it affects all models in a unit if at least one model has it e.g. stubborn/shrouded then it will as per the rules for ICs joining a unit that has special rules it does not. There is nothing at all in the IC rules that shows you gain detachment rules from another detachment.
ignorance of the rules does not make a incorrect false rule valid.
and nothing in my example states they didn't lose it I fail to see how you think I stated that. In fact no idea why you are bringing it up.
the unit from that detachment has a special rule given to them for being in that detachment before deployment.
an IC from not that detachment does not have that rule given to it before deployment.
You join the two together, in this case the special rule does not specifically state it confers to the whole unit if at least one model does e.g. stubborn/shrouded which is required by the RAW of the rulebook under ICs and special rules when joining a unit.
You now have a unit that has a model that does not have a special rule the rest have, in this case the special rule does not specifically state it extends to the 'unit' but the 'unit from that detachment' which the IC is not included in as per the RAW.
so how are you deepstriking a unit turn 1 with an IC that may or may not have deepstrike but does not have the ability to deep strike turn 1?
There is a difference in stating a rule extends to the unit, and a rule extends to a unit from that detachment. They both have different exact meanings, which is why one is used and not the other.
If I take an terminator squad[deep strike] and attach a chapter master[nothing that gives deepstrike purchased] can the terminator squad still deep strike?
The CM may be part of the unit but the CM does not have the deep strike rule and the deep strike rule itself does not specify it confers to the whole unit if 1 model has it.
post a page and para that states the IC attached counts as a unit from that detachment, not just a member of the unit, or concede.
Wait, so the unit isn't from that detachment? That's odd, the IC rules expressly disallow you to treat the IC differently
raw 1) the unit is from the detachment 2) the unit from that detachment can use that rule 3) joining the IC doesn't stop the unit from being from the detachment, as he is a normal member for ALL rules purposes so 4) the unit, still from the detachment, can use the rule
and now your a troll again. good job not supporting your statement in any way as usual and cherry picking.
edit
not that you deserve a response in any form at this point..
the IC rules allow you to count as a member of a unit joined, not a member of a unit joined from a certain detachment.
At no point do the IC rules allow you to count as an unit, or member of a unit from a different detachment. The IC is still from its own detachment, with its own detachment benefits/restrictions/faction even if the member of a unit from a different detachment.
if rites of teleportation stated any unit with this special rule, or a unit that contains a model with this special rule, you would have a point in that the IC is a member of that unit, but it states specifically "units from this detachment.." which the IC never becomes.
So the unit isn't from the detachment any longer? That means, for a rules purpose, you are treating the IC not as a normal member of the unit. Interesting.
Zimko wrote: A unit is a single entity (containing 1 to x models). The detachment rules are given to a unit (not the individual models).
An IC can join a unit, becoming part of that unit for all rules purposes.
The unit (with IC in tow) may still use the detachment special rule given to it since the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.
So far this is my understanding. Can you show me where I'm wrong blaktoof?
I have already posted all of this, along with the actual rules showing how this is not permitted and in many instances of what people have stated, yourself included in the above, are incorrect on.
here is some of it restated for you incase you did not read the above posts in this 1 page thread. Rules will be quoted verbatim and quote boxes.
Firstly an IC can join a unit, becoming a part of that unit for all rules purposes.
This means many things, but does not mean it gains special rules the unit had. It can count as a member of the unit for certain special rules which effect an entire unit if one model has them, e.g. stubborn. Many people mistakenly claim you an IC gets the special rules of a unit it joins, and the unit gets the ICs special rules, this is blatantly 100% wrong.
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit.
So now we know that characters can join units and even though the character is a member of the unit the units special rules are NOT conferred on the character and vice versa. The rule has to specify in the rule itself, that it extends to the other models in the unit. Let us look at the example rule they give, stubborn.
Stubborn When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.
notice the underline how it specifies that it extends to the whole unit if at least one model has the special rule, which is required to be stated as per the section on special rules and independent characters as listed under the independent character rules.
Now we know how special rules and ICs work, lets look at how anything gains bonuses/special rules from detachments/formations.
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
So we get these bonuses in battle forged armies for being in the FoC of the specific detachment the bonuses go to and no selection in a single detachment/formation may be part of another detachment. These special rules and bonuses are given to the detachments BEFORE deployment. At this point in the game it is not possible by any rule to join an IC to a unit, as that does not happen until deployment. So what happens is you give detachment bonuses/special rules before deployment, and then at deployment you join things together. There is no rule anywhere that allows you to give detachment bonuses/special rules to members of a detachment after that point.
The issue with rites of teleportion is simple.
1- The IC never has the actual special rule, the members of the unit from the NSF detachment do have it, the special rule in question was given to them before deployment. The IC could not join them then, and there is no RAW way to grant the bonus special rule to the unit after that point.
2- You have a unit from detachment NSF that has sepcial rule RoT from before deployment, and want to attach a unit from CAD that does not have the special rule, refer to above on ICs joining units with different special rules. The special rule in question in no way uses the language found in stubborn or similar rules that it extends to the entire unit if one model has it.
3- The Special rule 'rites of teleportation'
Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one.
doesn't state any unit with this special rule, or unit with a model with this special rule but instead states any unit in this detachment.
The NSF detachment is laid out in your army roster, it requires faction GK 1HQ, 1 Troops, and has optional 1 HQ, 3 Troops, 4 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy support, 1 LoW, and 1 Fortification. You have already note in your roster which units are from that detachment. Nothing changes that during the game because "no unit may belong to more than 1 detachment"
The IC you are attaching belongs to a detachment other than the NSF detachment in this case. The unit is not a Unit from detachment NSF at that point as not all models in it are from that detachment. There is no rule anywhere that explicitly states you may count as a member of another detachment for any reason at any certain time. Which is what is required at this point for the special rule to work the way you want it to because there is the very specific rule
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
The IC may be a member of the unit, but it is certainly not a member of the NSF detachment, the wording "unit in this detachment" is very clear, and its quite obvious on your army roster which detachment things are from.
If you claim the IC has changed detachments or counts as a member of another detachment in any way other than their own you have broken the RAW.
The IC never has a way to join the unit during the time the detachment bonus/special rule is given to the unit
The IC never has a way to count as a member of a unit from the NSF detachment.
No one has been able to find any RAW that states explicitly that an IC can count as a member of a different detachment to be "a unit from this detachment" because there is none, because it is not allowed. This is the only line that really needs to be stated, because without permission to belong to more than one detachment, or count as belonging to the NSF detachment the IC not from that detachment is never in any way under any circumstance a unit in the NSF detachment.
Blaktoof, Personally, I despise this Rule for a great deal of reasons but I do have to defend it in this case... it is the wording within the Rites of Teleportation which is in error.
The Independent Character Special Rule uses the word Count As because the Model in question is not Y and as such would not have access to Rules designed for Y. By having a Count As clause, we are instructed that X counts as Y within the situations laid out within the Count As clause itself. In this case, and to my great displeasure, those situations are 'all Rule purposes...' so it would be a violation of Rule as Written to Count the model as anything other then Y whenever a Rule interacts with it. It doesn't become Y in these situations, it is still X, but the Rules simply treat it as Y
So, even putting aside the fact that the Independent Character does not change Detachments there is the following to ponder: Are the Rules telling us how to determine what Detachment X belongs to not.... Rules?
The IC never is awarded the special rule as it is given to the relevant units in the NSF detachment prior to deployment, a time you cannot place the IC in the unit.
the rule specifies "units in this detachment may"
at what point and with what quoted RAW is an Unit from a combined armes detachment ever considered a unit from a NSF detachment?
Page and para that allows the above specifically.
there is none, but good luck.
if the thing being falsely proposed were true what would happen would be if the unit counts as a unit of the other detachment you would be breaking the RAW that units cannot belong to more than one detachment, in many cases you would also at that point have an illegal army if you claimed it was battle forged as the IC attached is not GK faction which is required to be a unit from that detachment. Additionally there is a good chance one of your detachments no longer has the minimum required HQ slots from units in that detachment, and the NSF detachment very well might have 3 IC units, which is obviously wrong.
at no point does an unit in detachment x count as a unit in detachment Y.
As the rules for RoT state "units in this detachment" it will not work.
claiming the wording in RoT is in error is not really a RAW argument.
The problem is not determining which Detachment the Model belongs to, it is determining which Unit the Model belongs to.
The Rites should of been far better written, as it never should have targeted the unit as a whole! The argument your opponent has made do not involved changing Detachments or finding a way to apply this Rule to the Model itself, it simply involves pointing out the target of the Command Benefit is a Unit that has been chosen from the Detachment, and that it is still being applied to a Unit that was selected from the Detachment. It doesn't matter what Detachment the Independent Character originally belongs to, as the Rule will treat them as being part of the target Unit for the purpose of this Rule. As we are required by the Rules to treat the Independent Character as a Model within the Unit, we lack the ability to separate the the Joined Unit into two separate Units for the purpose of determining which Models benefit from a Unit-wide Command Benefit.
stating the unit is chosen from the detachment is accurate only until you attach an IC not chosen from the detachment to it.
the unit is no longer chosen from the detachment solely and there is no RAW that actually supports that if an IC is joined to another unit from another detachment that the unit counts solely as from that detachment, and the IC no longer counts as from its detachment.
As such the Unit is made up of models from more than one detachment, and more than one detachment is not "units from this" NSF detachment.
There is no actual rule anywhere that an unit made up of models from more than one detachment is a unit from only x detachment.
Problem: Joining Rules are clear that the Character becomes part of the existing Unit.
There are other problems with your interpenetration, but before I continue I will simply ask: What Rules inform us how to determine which Detachment this new 'Joined Unit' belongs to?
The models are joined together as a unit, however RAW the unit is now made up of models from more than 1 detachment.
there is no single detachment they are from, RAW.
joining rules are clear the character becomes part of the unit.
however as many people incorrectly stated, the IC does not have the special rule conferred to it.
the special rule in question does not fall under a special rule that would benefit the unit as a whole, as it requires the whole unit to be a unit from the NSF detachment.
the special rule does not therefore confer to an IC outside of the NSF detachment.
The unit is no longer "from this detachment" the nsf detachment as it includes a unit from outside of the detachment. If i had to point to the two unit entries on a force roster that make up the unit on the table one obviously is a unit from the nsf detachment, the other is obviously a unit from not the nsf detachment but another detachment.
are the they in the same unit? yes.
are the models in the unit all of same detachment? no.
is that unit from this detachment, this being an NSF detachment. no.
I find the terms you are using "your interpretation" to be quite rude as it is incorrect and I am merely stating the RAW and pointing out that "yourside" has 0 RAW to back up that the unit is indeded a "unit from this detachment' the nsf detachment when clearly it is not. It may have models from that detachment, but it is no longer a unit from that detachment, it is now a unit with models from the nsf detachment+a model from that other detachment.
can you quote some RAW anywhere that a IC joined to a unit counts as a member of that units detachment?
blaktoof wrote: The models are joined together as a unit, however RAW the unit is now made up of models from more than 1 detachment.
there is no single detachment they are from, RAW.
But .. didn't you quote the rules stating the following?
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
If so, how can it be from more than 1 detachment? Your argument makes no sense at this point.
joining rules are clear the character becomes part of the unit.
however as many people incorrectly stated, the IC does not have the special rule conferred to it.
the special rule in question does not fall under a special rule that would benefit the unit as a whole, as it requires the whole unit to be a unit from the NSF detachment.
.. which is a unit, that has the command benefit being discussed, of which the IC is a member of for all rules purposes.
the special rule does not therefore confer to an IC outside of the NSF detachment.
Nobody is trying to confer it to an IC outside of the detachment, but to the unit, which already has it.
[quote[The unit is no longer "from this detachment" the nsf detachment as it includes a unit from outside of the detachment
[/quote[
And you have rules showing us that we can take a unit and have it change detachments? Or suddenly become from multiple/no detachment, despite the rule quoted above?
If i had to point to the two unit entries on a force roster that make up the unit on the table one obviously is a unit from the nsf detachment, the other is obviously a unit from not the nsf detachment but another detachment.
Incorrect. It is a unit from the NSF detachment with an attached IC from another detachment, who, per the IC rules, is now a member of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own, so your claiming people wanting to make the IC a unit from the NSF detachment is false as well. Once joined to a unit, the IC is a member of the unit and ceases to be its own unit until it leaves the unit. The IC is still from its original detachment, but the rule specifies UNIT, not model, so this is irrelevant.
are the they in the same unit? yes.
are the models in the unit all of same detachment? no.
is that unit from this detachment, this being an NSF detachment. no.
False. It is still a unit from the NSF detachment. You have no rules permission to change that.
can you quote some RAW anywhere that a IC joined to a unit counts as a member of that units detachment?
No, and quite Irrelevant. The IC, joined to a unit (from the NSF detachment) is a member of the unit (from the NSF detachment).
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.
Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.
as such the remainder of your post is invalid as it is based solely on the premise that the above rule continues to function outside of selecting your force roster.
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.
Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.
How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.
as such the remainder of your post is invalid as it is based solely on the premise that the above rule continues to function outside of selecting your force roster.
So you continue to insist that a GK unit in an NSF detachment is no longer such once an IC from another attachment is joined? You have rules to tell us what it becomes then, correct?
All of your posts on this matter have been based solely on this incorrect premise, and so are invalid (see, two can play the [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]).
Blaktoofs concept is flawed, as it tries to state that somehow the unit I'd from two detachments. Or none. It isn't clear. But of course, that breaks the incredibly all encompassing rule stating that, FORALL RULES PURPOSES he is a normal member of that unit
Detachment is a rules purpose. This is utterly undeniable. Well, to rational posters it is.
Blaktoofs stance relies upon breaking a rule, breaking another rule (units may only belong to one detachment), and just ends up as a complete mess.
Or, you follow the utterly clear and obvious real rules.
Every model in the detachment has a special rule that allows the unit to do "X".
Since the special rule in question applies to the unit as a whole, and does not say something along the lines of "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule..." I believe, while it might not be intended, RAW allows it.
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.
Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.
How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.
you claim an IC joining a unit becomes a member of that detachment for all rules purposes because the unit is from that detachment.
despite the fact there is no RAW of this, and you and others have failed to ever quote any...
along with failing to comment on if a unit from one detachment now counts as being from another detachment the army is currently illegal based on FOC selections, as well as things such as if the attached IC is the warlord, which has to be from your primary detachment, and you put it into a NSF that is not your primary detachment, if the IC counts solely as from the other detachment when it is part of that unit because the unit is of detachment NSF your army now has a warlord outside of its primary detachment according to your invalid false made up non rules supported B.S. nonsense stance.
if You have 2 ICs join together, which is allowed under the IC rules, which unit would the unit now be from?
You claim it has to be from only one unit, and that units cannot have models from multiple detachments in them.
blaktoof wrote: so no one can show that an IC joining a unit becomes a unit from a different detachment, or a counts as a unit from a different detachment.
No, because nobody is claiming that. When an IC joins a unit it becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes. It does not, in any way, as has been stated many times in response to you, become "a unit from a different detachment".
An IC joining a unit has nothing to do with detachments.
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.
Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.
How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.
you claim an IC joining a unit becomes a member of that detachment for all rules purposes because the unit is from that detachment.
despite the fact there is no RAW of this, and you and others have failed to ever quote any...
Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever claimed this despite you insisting so.
The same rules you quote are the rules used to show you are incorrect, so why requote them?
along with failing to comment on if a unit from one detachment now counts as being from another detachment the army is currently illegal based on FOC selections, as well as things such as if the attached IC is the warlord, which has to be from your primary detachment, and you put it into a NSF that is not your primary detachment, if the IC counts solely as from the other detachment when it is part of that unit because the unit is of detachment NSF your army now has a warlord outside of its primary detachment according to your invalid false made up non rules supported B.S. nonsense stance.
None of which is factual, nor has anyone claimed anything you are trying to say here.
if You have 2 ICs join together, which is allowed under the IC rules, which unit would the unit now be from?
You claim it has to be from only one unit, and that units cannot have models from multiple detachments in them.
Again, nobody has claimed what you're saying.
which detachment is a unit from that has
IC from USF
IC from CAD
That depends on which IC joined which unit. The IC who joins a unit, becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes. It's not cryptic or difficult to understand.
so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"
Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.
In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.
In summery, if a Detachment Benefit effects units rather than models, the IC would be effected. If the Benefit requires all models to be from the Detachment, the Benefit would not confer to the IC. Also, an argument can be made that Benefits from the IC that effects units would also effect the joined unit. Without an FAQ addressing this different, it is RAW that Benefits to units do confer if no specific restriction is noted due the the poor wording of the IC rules.
blaktoof wrote: so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"
got it.
Nope, why would the IC still be a unit? He's part of a unit , that is part of the nsf detachment. Any reason you're asking for something irrelevant?
Why are you breaking rules? Can you provide permission to not treat the IC as a member of that unit for ALL rules purpose ( ooh look, detachment is a rules purpose...) or will you just ignore this, again.
Mark your posts HYWPI, as they fail to reflect any actual rules in the game
To anyone else reading this: you can safely ignore blaktoofs argument, as it contains no actual rules relevAnt to this query.
blaktoof wrote: so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"
No one posted rule to support that because no one is claiming that.
to anyone reading this you can safely ignore most of the people claiming this is allowed as they are unable to support it with any rules that show an unit joined to another unit counts as being in that units detachment, since there is no actual rule stating this.
Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.
blaktoof wrote: to anyone reading this you can safely ignore most of the people claiming this is allowed as they are unable to support it with any rules that show an unit joined to another unit counts as being in that units detachment, since there is no actual rule stating this.
No one has offered rules supporting that because no one is claiming it.
Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.
So the rules that you dismissed as only counting during list building suddenly apply now?
for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.
blaktoof wrote: for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.
Thanks.
I have posted rules to support my stance in the past. I haven't this time as you continuously choose to not argue the point I'm making, but something that I've never stated instead.
As such, it's not worth actually attempting to discuss with you.
blaktoof wrote: for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.
Thanks.
Rules have been provided. You just choose to ignore them, creating strawman arguments and absurd claims in preference.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.
In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.
In summery, if a Detachment Benefit effects units rather than models, the IC would be effected. If the Benefit requires all models to be from the Detachment, the Benefit would not confer to the IC. Also, an argument can be made that Benefits from the IC that effects units would also effect the joined unit. Without an FAQ addressing this different, it is RAW that Benefits to units do confer if no specific restriction is noted due the the poor wording of the IC rules.
SJ
Err in the case of Not special rules and then in regards to your last paragraph then it could get pretty messy as it then seems dependant on what the Command Benefit does (Though it seems messy anyway using special rules). Ongoing unit effects are not shared by the different units - in the same way Special Rules are not - irrelevant of the fact if the effect was on 'Models in the unit' or 'Unit', in the way its all written there can be some debate to if in these areas GW writers actually acknoledge if there is a difference between given to models or units at all.
Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.
You keep banging that drum .. nobody is even remotely attempting to argue this incorrect assumption (outside of telling you that it's not what's being said; at all).
Let's be clear;
I have a Strike Squad from a Grey Knights NSF detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I have a Librarian from a Space Marines detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I attach the Librarian to the Strike Squad.
The Librarian now becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes , as the IC rules state (ergo, it is no longer its own unit).
The librarian is now a member of a unit that was chosen as a unit in an NSF Detachment and remains a unit in that detachment.
The Librarian does not "become a unit from the NSF detachment", nor does it lose any detachment status.
It is NO LONGER A UNIT of its own.
It remains a MODEL chosen from a Space Marines detachment, but is, for all rules purposes, a member of a UNIT from the NSF detachment (notice model =/= unit; this is important).
The GK rule states "units from the NSF detachment may" .. nowhere has the unit lost it's status as a unit from the NSF detachment, or that it is now a "unit from X+Y" detachments, or that it is a "unit from no detachment. In fact, there are no rules that tell us it ever does, or can. It remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen, with an IC attached (who remains a MODEL from its own detachment, but a member of a UNIT from another detachment .. no, this does not mean in any way that it is a member of two detachments).
Rorshach - probably best to leave this one. Every rules quote has been provided to blaktoof, and every time they come up with an entirely different argument to the one presented, and claim that is "our" argument. From memory in the prior thread Rigeld went to great pains to point this out to blaktoof, to no avail.
They are convinced we are saying the IC "unit" changes detachment, when of course that is not the argument
Again, to posters who may be confused - blaktoofs argument literally has no merit, it is not based in any current set of rules, and they cannot post any relevant rules to support their stance. Their constant cries of "troll" also violates rule 1 of this site.
Unusually for GW the "obvious" answer - that the IC can still DS with the unit, using their special rules - is also the one supported by the rules.
Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.
You keep banging that drum .. nobody is even remotely attempting to argue this incorrect assumption (outside of telling you that it's not what's being said; at all).
Let's be clear;
I have a Strike Squad from a Grey Knights NSF detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I have a Librarian from a Space Marines detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I attach the Librarian to the Strike Squad.
The Librarian now becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes , as the IC rules state (ergo, it is no longer its own unit).
The librarian is now a member of a unit that was chosen as a unit in an NSF Detachment and remains a unit in that detachment.
The Librarian does not "become a unit from the NSF detachment", nor does it lose any detachment status.
It is NO LONGER A UNIT of its own.
It remains a MODEL chosen from a Space Marines detachment, but is, for all rules purposes, a member of a UNIT from the NSF detachment (notice model =/= unit; this is important).
The GK rule states "units from the NSF detachment may" .. nowhere has the unit lost it's status as a unit from the NSF detachment, or that it is now a "unit from X+Y" detachments, or that it is a "unit from no detachment. In fact, there are no rules that tell us it ever does, or can. It remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen, with an IC attached (who remains a MODEL from its own detachment, but a member of a UNIT from another detachment .. no, this does not mean in any way that it is a member of two detachments).
Lets be clear, your continued trolling and mis representation of what the argument actually is and what is stated by others is tiring and against the forum rules.
The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment if a model in the unit is not from the NSF detachment.
Attaching an IC does not make the IC count as being from the NSF detachment, nor does it count as a unit from the NSF detachment.
Write out a force roster, assign benfits, deploy-> attaching IC to strike squad then point to your written out force roster to which models those detachments are from. Units are made from models, not all models are from that detachment, ergo and RAW that unit is not from the detachment.
you and no one else has posted RAW otherwise that an IC attached to a unit counts as a member of that detachment in this thread or another, and the continued misrepresentation of that that is pathetic.
Reported, again. I suggest you desist making personal attacks.
So which detachment is the NSF unit from? Are you treating the IC as NOT a normal member of the unit - unqualified - for a rules purpose, and thus breaking the rules?
You cannot supply a single valid counter argument to this.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Reported, again. I suggest you desist making personal attacks.
So which detachment is the NSF unit from? Are you treating the IC as NOT a normal member of the unit - unqualified - for a rules purpose, and thus breaking the rules?
You cannot supply a single valid counter argument to this.
I find it interesting how often you feel the need to misquote and misrepresent other posters, a trend not only in this thread.
Which detachment is the IC from when joined to the NSF unit?
The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment if a model in the unit is not from the NSF detachment.
Then what detachment is it from?
Attaching an IC does not make the IC count as being from the NSF detachment, nor does it count as a unit from the NSF detachment.
Nobody has said it does. Ever. Not only that, the IC is no longer its own unit (funny, I feel this has been mentioned already) when it joins another unit.
Write out a force roster, assign benfits, deploy-> attaching IC to strike squad then point to your written out force roster to which models those detachments are from. Units are made from models, not all models are from that detachment, ergo and RAW that unit is not from the detachment.
Please, provide the rules that state the unit is not from the detachment. What rules are allowing you to remove it from the detachment and/or change its detachment?
you and no one else has posted RAW otherwise that an IC attached to a unit counts as a member of that detachment in this thread or another, and the continued misrepresentation of that that is pathetic.
Because we have not attempted to prove that an IC attached to a unit "counts as a member of that detachment". It doesn't.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.
I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.
I see you are not.able to answer the questio.
An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?
The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?
Ask something relevant then you may get an answer. I see you were unable to answer mine - or else refusing to, knowing it destroys your argument?
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. THe rules purpose, in this case, is "is this a NSF detachment unit?". Yes is the only possible answer.
If you claim they are NOT a NSF detachment, what are they? Cite a rule allowing a unit to be in two detachments at once, and cite a rule allowing you to NOT treatr the IC as a normal member of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES
currently there is precisely one troll on this thread.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.
I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.
I see you are not.able to answer the questio.
An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?
The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?
Why does it matter what detachment a (currently) non-existent unit is from?
The rule in question refers to units from that detachment. The IC joined a unit from that detachment. The unit is still a unit from that detachment,
And calling other users 'trolls' is not acceptable.
IF you see a post that you think breaks the rules of this site, the ONLY appropriate 'response' is to report the post using the Moderator Alert button!
nosferatu1001 wrote: Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.
I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.
I see you are not.able to answer the questio.
An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?
The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?
Why does it matter what detachment a (currently) non-existent unit is from?
The rule in question refers to units from that detachment. The IC joined a unit from that detachment. The unit is still a unit from that detachment,
There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.
a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.
without specific permission to ignore that the IC cannot join the detachment, nor count as a member of the detachment the IC cannot count as a member of the NSF detachment even when joined to a unit from the detachment- as there is no RAW permission that this can happen.
its the same reason you cannot attack Ghaz to an ork warband and say he is the warboss from the formation and give him a 2++ every turn.
its the same reason you can never claim a unit is from another detachment or switch detachments, regardless if they are joined to a unit from another detachment.
no unit can be part of more than 1 detachment, but that rule only exists for army creation so after you have assigned units to detachments you can have a unit with models that are from more than 1 detachment[with none of the models themselves being from more than 1 detachment], but as there is no RAW permission for the units to switch or gain detachments at this point you also satisify the RAW that prior to deployment you cannot have a unit belong to more than 1 detachment, the result is the IC is not a member of the detachment even when joined. There is 0 RAW evidence to support the opposite and many of the posters in this thread have failed to post a single quote from the RAW, and if they do it is always incomplete or has nothing to do with the actual topic. I.E. drop pod rules, I.E. "heres the first part of the rules, then I omit the rest because I would be wrong"
Blaktoof, I do not understand why you would want to link your argument to Deep Strike.
If it wasn't for the existence of a specific Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule, designed to force each Model to have the Rule before it functions, then it would be possible to join a non-Deep Striking Model and still be able to Deep Strike the entire Unit. The existence of a Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule highlights the requirement for similar Rules to also have similar Restrictions. The lack of similar Restrictions, within a Special Rule which targets the Unit as a whole, would lead me to the conclusion that the Special Rule in question can be applied to the Unit regardless of which Models in the Unit possess the Special Rule. That alone makes bringing up Deep Strike an act of undermining your own argument....
JinxDragon wrote: Blaktoof,
I do not understand why you would want to link your argument to Deep Strike.
If it wasn't for the existence of a specific Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule, designed to force each Model to have the Rule before it functions, then it would be possible to join a non-Deep Striking Model and still be able to Deep Strike the entire Unit. The existence of a Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule highlights the requirement for similar Rules to also have similar Restrictions. The lack of similar Restrictions, within a Special Rule which targets the Unit as a whole, would lead me to the conclusion that the Special Rule in question can be applied to the Unit regardless of which Models in the Unit possess the Special Rule. That alone makes bringing up Deep Strike an act of undermining your own argument....
the deep strike comparison is because the IC from outside of the detachment absolutely never has the special rule in question, as it is awarded to the unit prior to deployment. The soonest the IC can join the unit is deployment, at which time there is no RAW permission from then on out to the end of the game to give detachment special rules/benefits.
this detachment special rule specifically calls out that all the units must be from the detachment for the special rule.
units being made of models, and in this case not all models in the unit have the special rule nor are all the models in the unit from the said detachment.
I bring up deep striking, because essentially people are either misrepresenting when detachments grant special rules/benefits and or claiming the attached unit somehow counts as being in the same detachment as the unit to be a 'a unit from the nsf detachment'
as we have rules that tell us no unit can be assigned to more than 1 detachment when making our force roster, this does not mean after the game a model from one detachment with the IC rule that is allowed to join a unit would not be able to join a unit from another detachment with factions being okay with such a joining.
However, the joined unit is not a unit from a singular detachment, it has models from more than one detachment in it.
No one has been able to cite RAW permission anywhere that the joined IC from any detachment other than the NSF counts as a unit from the NSF for the 'rites of teleportation rules'
yes the model counts as a member of the unit, but it does not count as a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit that was selected from it, or even a model from a unit selected from the NSF detachment. There is no RAW support for such a thing. In this case such an assertation by certain people is even more erroneous because the NSF has the restriction of 'grey knights' faction not just 'space marine' faction, which obviously the joined IC does not have, and does not count as having, making it in no way or shape a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit from the NSF detachment, as the NSF units are solely the units[formed of models] chosen from that FOC with the grey knights faction[required restriction]
there is no rule against a unit after army creation containing models from multiple detachments, so it is RAW that the models keep their faction and detachment identity, and do not gain or change factions.
as such a unit that has 10 strike squad members from a NSF and 1 attached IC from a CAD is a unit that has 11 models, 10 of which have faction GK and detachent NSF listed on their force roster with benefits/special rules from their own wargear, unit entry, and detachment entry which are granted all prior to the game starting ie prior to deployment, and a singular IC from a different detachment, with its own detachment rules/benefits/restrictions and rules from wargear unit entry. Neither have RAW permission to default confer special rules to each other, as has been quoted by myself earlier in this read regarding special rules and ICs which can be found in the BRB. The unit cannot claim to be "from the NSF detachment" or a unit form the nsf detachment, because not all models in the unit are actually from that detachment.
to be honest I play mostly Dark Eldar and Orks and would love for this to be the case, because then I could have deep striking ICs with wracks/veboms turn 1, or Ghaz having endless 2++ and all kinds of ork fun things, but it is not the RAW and it is not legal just as the above scenario is not.
blaktoof wrote: There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.
Did anybody claim this? You keep bringing this up but nobody is claiming that the IC switches Detachment. So why bring it up?
a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.
And the rule in question doesn't care if models in the unit are from another detachment. All it carees about is if the unit itself is from the detachment.
without specific permission to ignore that the IC cannot join the detachment, nor count as a member of the detachment the IC cannot count as a member of the NSF detachment even when joined to a unit from the detachment- as there is no RAW permission that this can happen.
Nobody is trying to join the IC to the detachment. People are trying to use a special rule that affects the unit as a whole that the IC just happens to be part of.
its the same reason you cannot attack Ghaz to an ork warband and say he is the warboss from the formation and give him a 2++ every turn.
Well seeing as how the 2++ requires Ghaz to call a Waaagh! and be your Warlord, and the formation requires the formation's warboss to be the warlord to call a waaagh every turn, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
its the same reason you can never claim a unit is from another detachment or switch detachments, regardless if they are joined to a unit from another detachment.
Please read this very carefully.
No one is claiming that an IC changes detachments when it joins a unit.
no unit can be part of more than 1 detachment, but that rule only exists for army creation so after you have assigned units to detachments you can have a unit with models that are from more than 1 detachment[with none of the models themselves being from more than 1 detachment], but as there is no RAW permission for the units to switch or gain detachments at this point you also satisify the RAW that prior to deployment you cannot have a unit belong to more than 1 detachment, the result is the IC is not a member of the detachment even when joined. There is 0 RAW evidence to support the opposite and many of the posters in this thread have failed to post a single quote from the RAW, and if they do it is always incomplete or has nothing to do with the actual topic. I.E. drop pod rules, I.E. "heres the first part of the rules, then I omit the rest because I would be wrong"
Correct. No unit can part of more than 1 detachment. If Ghaz joins the unit of Nobz from the Ork Warband Formation, it is still a unit of Nobz. From the Ork Warband formation.
jeffersonian000 wrote:Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.
In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.
I disagree with that last sentence.
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.
The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.
blaktoof wrote: There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.
Did anybody claim this? You keep bringing this up but nobody is claiming that the IC switches Detachment. So why bring it up?
blaktoof wrote: a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.
And the rule in question doesn't care if models in the unit are from another detachment. All it carees about is if the unit itself is from the detachment.
Which is a distinction without a difference. Only units from an NSF can use Rites of Teleportation. If you somehow gave a Codex: Space Marine unit of Terminators the GK version of this rule, it would not allow them to DS on the first turn, nor both run and shoot on the turn they arrived. The argument for allowing an IC to do just that when attached to a NSF unit hinges on him becoming part of that NSF unit "for all rules purposes," which by implication includes switching to the NSF detachment, or else you have a unit that's unable to use Rites of Teleportation.
Unfortunately, the argument really hinges on whether or not the IC is considered part of the NSF detachment. So let me pose the following hypothetical: You have a Primary Detachment (say Codex: Space Marines) with a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour as your Warlord, plus the NSF as allied Battle Brothers. You choose to place your Warlord in Deep Strike Reserve with a Deep Striking GK unit. If you believe the CM becomes part of the NSF detachment (per the IC instructions of "for all rules purposes"), how do you reconcile your choice of Primary Detachment?
The Primary Detachment, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote:Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment.
Since it's been established that he has to be one or the other, since a unit may not be a member of more than one detachment, if your CM is claiming to be part of a different detachment "for all rules purposes," can he still be your Warlord?
If detachment membership is determined on a per-model basis, I'm not sure there's a case for allowing an attached IC to use Rites of Teleportation. If detachment membership is instead determined by the joined unit, I'm not sure there's a case for ever allowing a character to attach across detachment lines in a Battle-Forged army.
The unit, as a whole, for all rules purposes, must treat the IC as a normal member of that unit
The rule you post is a rule during "choosing your army". By the time you get to deployment, this rule has been satisfied. What rule allows you to review this rule and apply it again? Bear in mind that, if you claim "choosing your army" rules apply throughout the game, the instant my unit of 5 chaos marines takes a casualty, I have an illegal army.
Blaktoof - again, you are not treating the IC as a normal member of the unit, for the rules purpose of "is this unit from the NSF detachment?" and ths have broken the rules. Your wall of text does nothing but show your inability to address that point.
Your concession on this matter is accepted, mark your posts "HYWPI" as you cannot support your argument with relevant rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit, as a whole, for all rules purposes, must treat the IC as a normal member of that unit
The rule you post is a rule during "choosing your army". By the time you get to deployment, this rule has been satisfied. What rule allows you to review this rule and apply it again? Bear in mind that, if you claim "choosing your army" rules apply throughout the game, the instant my unit of 5 chaos marines takes a casualty, I have an illegal army.
The Rites of Teleportation rule requires you to evaluate detachment membership in order to resolve it ("...any unit in this Detachment...") during deployment, after you have nominated your Warlord. Selecting and adjudicating Warlord traits also requires evaluation of detachment membership, explicitly so in the case of a reserved unit that is reliant upon a Warlord trait to deploy onto the table in an unusual way, or also in the case of death of a Warlord, (also in "Choose your Army") when you may be required to evaluate detachment membership well into a game.
But even if you wish to disregard "Choosing Your Army" as irrelevant, how do you resolve rules such as Codex: Space Marine Chapter Tactics, which also specify the language "units in this detachment?" Does a White Scars character lose Hit & Run when joining a unit from an allied detachment? How about a Raven Guard character who is trying to confer Scout or Outflank to an allied unit joined during deployment? Does he get shunted back into normal Reserves when Outflanking? Is the unit destroyed absent permission to re-enter Reserves as soon as it declares a Scout or Outflank move with the character joined?
Gestalt unit detachment membership seems to open up a lot of holes in the ruleset. The only way I can fully resolve these situations by RAW is to use the concept of per-model membership.
In this case the unit is still demonstrably from the NSF, while the character does not change detachment.
You have to recall that, treating the IC NOT as a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes means you have broken a rule. As per YMDC, please show the rule allowing you to break this fairly all encompassing and overarching rule.
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.
The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.
The underlined is not in the rule for Rites of Teleportation. It specifically says all units (not models) in the detachment have the special rule. An IC by default is treated as part of the unit it joins and therefore gains the benefit of special rules that the unit has UNLESS there is a specific restriction such as the one given to Deep Strike (Deep Strike requires all models in a unit to have Deep Strike before it functions. Rites of Teleportation does not have this wording.) There are actually very few special rules given to entire units... most of them are given to individual models and don't cause issues. Rites of Teleportation is an example of a special rule given on the unit level instead of the model level.
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.
The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.
The underlined is not in the rule for Rites of Teleportation. It specifically says all units (not models) in the detachment have the special rule. An IC by default is treated as part of the unit it joins and therefore gains the benefit of special rules that the unit has UNLESS there is a specific restriction such as the one given to Deep Strike (Deep Strike requires all models in a unit to have Deep Strike before it functions. Rites of Teleportation does not have this wording.) There are actually very few special rules given to entire units... most of them are given to individual models and don't cause issues. Rites of Teleportation is an example of a special rule given on the unit level instead of the model level.
To be fair with rites the unit doesn't seem to have the rule either, the rule seems attached to the detachment and utilised by units.
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...
I do disagree the IC gains the benefit of the units special rules unless stated otherwise, the BRBIC rules are pretty clear its the other way around, the IC only gains the special rule or gains the benefit or suffers the penalties if stated in the special rule itself (AKA, if one or more models....). Whole page on Special rules and ongoing effects on the IC special rules.
And yes, nearly all special rules which effect units quantify if all models need it, or if at least one model in the unit has the rule then it's affected to the whole unit. The command benefits IMO should be worded in the same way. Flick through special rule section, its all 'If one or more model with this special rule....'.
But even if you wish to disregard "Choosing Your Army" as irrelevant, how do you resolve rules such as Codex: Space Marine Chapter Tactics, which also specify the language "units in this detachment?" Does a White Scars character lose Hit & Run when joining a unit from an allied detachment? How about a Raven Guard character who is trying to confer Scout or Outflank to an allied unit joined during deployment? Does he get shunted back into normal Reserves when Outflanking? Is the unit destroyed absent permission to re-enter Reserves as soon as it declares a Scout or Outflank move with the character joined?
Gestalt unit detachment membership seems to open up a lot of holes in the ruleset. The only way I can fully resolve these situations by RAW is to use the concept of per-model membership.
The underlined is not true.
The unit that the IC attached to is still a "unit from this (grey knights NSF) detachment", no matter how you wish to parse the rules. The unit remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen from at all times. There are zero rules that change that.
The IC joining a unit from another detachment does not change the units detachment, nor does it magically remove the detachment (there are no rules to tell us the unit is no longer from X detachment). The IC is no longer a unit, so what detachment it is from is irrelevant as it belongs to a UNIT from the GK NSF detachment at this point (even though it was chosen as a member of X detachment, and remains a member of X detachment, but a member of a UNIT from GK NSF detachment for all rules purposes, including detachment rules that are based on the UNIT, not individual models).
BRB wrote:Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Does not apply as the Rites of Teleportation is a Detachment special rule, not a unit special rule. All units from the GK NSF detachment have the rule for being part of the detachment. When the IC joins the unit, the IC is a member of the unit and so will benefit from the rule.
BRB wrote:Preparing Reserves
Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must
arrive together.... when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character
I have deployed my IC with the GK NSF unit. The GK NSF unit is still a unit from the GK NSF detachment (again, no rule has removed this or changed this to a nondescript unit) and so can come in T1 by making a single roll, as it is a combined reserve unit.
brb wrote:INDEPENDENT CHARACTER
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.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
brb wrote:
DETACHMENTS
All of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong
to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
The unit must belong to a detachment. Units cannot belong to more than one detachment. I attach an IC to the GK NSF unit, what detachment is the Unit from? Why?
this detachment special rule specifically calls out that all the units must be from the detachment for the special rule.
units being made of models, and in this case not all models in the unit have the special rule nor are all the models in the unit from the said detachment.
Yes, units are made of models. The Rites of Teleportation does not care about models, only the Unit as a whole. The unit remains a unit from the NSF detachment, as per the rules.
claiming the attached unit somehow counts as being in the same detachment as the unit to be a 'a unit from the nsf detachment'
The attached IC (not unit .. IC/Model) is a member of the Unit from the NSF detachment. Nobody, ever, despite your constant harping on this, has claimed the IC (model) becomes a member of another detachment. Full stop.
However, the joined unit is not a unit from a singular detachment, it has models from more than one detachment in it.
The unit the IC joined IS from the NSF detachment despite having an IC joined to it from another detachment. You have zero rules to change that.
No one has been able to cite RAW permission anywhere that the joined IC from any detachment other than the NSF counts as a unit from the NSF for the 'rites of teleportation rules'
And nobody is trying to because that is not true (again).
yes the model counts as a member of the unit, but it does not count as a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit that was selected from it, or even a model from a unit selected from the NSF detachment.
Correct. Nobody is claiming it is. The IC remains a model from its own detachment, but it is a member of a UNIT from the NSF detachment. There is no RAW support to remove the NSF unit from its detachment or make up some imaginary 3rd detachment of "Combined X+Y detachment"
There is no RAW support for such a thing. In this case such an assertation by certain people is even more erroneous because the NSF has the restriction of 'grey knights' faction not just 'space marine' faction, which obviously the joined IC does not have, and does not count as having, making it in no way or shape a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit from the NSF detachment, as the NSF units are solely the units[formed of models] chosen from that FOC with the grey knights faction[required restriction]
Nobody has argued (or asserted as you put it) that the IC does (any of the above).
Stop saying it has been asserted.
there is no rule against a unit after army creation containing models from multiple detachments, so it is RAW that the models keep their faction and detachment identity, and do not gain or change factions.
Correct.
as such a unit that has 10 strike squad members from a NSF and 1 attached IC from a CAD is a unit that has 11 models, 10 of which have faction GK and detachent NSF listed on their force roster with benefits/special rules from their own wargear, unit entry, and detachment entry which are granted all prior to the game starting ie prior to deployment, and a singular IC from a different detachment, with its own detachment rules/benefits/restrictions and rules from wargear unit entry. Neither have RAW permission to default confer special rules to each other, as has been quoted by myself earlier in this read regarding special rules and ICs which can be found in the BRB. The unit cannot claim to be "from the NSF detachment" or a unit form the nsf detachment, because not all models in the unit are actually from that detachment.
So if the unit cannot be a unit from the NSF detachment, what detachment does it belong to? It may only belong to one detachment, which was decided when you built the list, and there are no rules allowing that to change. Please, answer this. You have failed to answer so far (except earlier stating it's a unit from NO detachment, which breaks the rules, and then waffling that its a unit from X+Y detachment, which breaks the rules as well).
So to sum up, for those lost in the back and forth:
RAW, the unit remains a unit from the NSF detachment, and thus any attached IC with access to DS may DS with the unit, utilising the detachment special rule as this is granted to the unit as a whole. There is no in rules way to argue against this, and none of the arguments presented by Blaktoof has contained any relevant rules or rebuttals of these facts.
Noone has claimed the IC unit changes detachment in order for this argument to be true
Noone has claimed the IC model changes detachment in order for this argument to be true.
In this case the unit is still demonstrably from the NSF, while the character does not change detachment.
You have to recall that, treating the IC NOT as a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes means you have broken a rule. As per YMDC, please show the rule allowing you to break this fairly all encompassing and overarching rule.
If you cannot, your argument fails
not irrelevant.
The issue is the special rule in question doesn't benefit the unit, but the unit from x detachment.
so the detachment and identity of belonging to the detachment cannot be ignored.
treating the IC as a member of the unit does not mean treating it as a member of the detachment.
You have never specified permission for it to count as a member of the detachment for all rules purposes of a unit it has joined.
even discounting that part of your argument which you fail on and have no RAW support at all, the issue of the NSF detachment having the GK faction and the joined IC is not GK faction therefore it can never be part of the NSF detachment in any way is the second issued which you would have to overcome RAW-wise to even begin to make a case for what you saying being the rules.
obviously counts as being a member of the unit does not extend to every rule, as this is blatantly false.
For example, joining an IC with the faction Space marine from a CAD to a Strike Squad with the faction Grey Knights does not make the IC count as GK faction despite the unit being made of models with the GK faction, faction is a rules purpose. How do you have a model without the required faction in the detachment? You are either ignorant of the rules or a cheater at this point.
For example, joing an IC from a CAD to a unit that is from a NSF does not make the IC a model from the NSF.
I won't bother touching on how the interpretation you are putting forth breaks the game in other ways as that has already been stated, and no one has bothered to address them.
and a reminder for people misquoting rules:
There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available, within the restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
In order to organise their army into Detachments, a player will often need to use additional information found in their units’ Army List Entries, such as Faction and Battlefield Role.
Has to do with organizing your force roster, you can have a unit with models from more than one detachment after the game has begun by joining a unit from detachment 1 to a unit from detachment 2, the individual units on their force roster however as per the above RAW do not belong to more than 1 detachment on your force roster.
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.
The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.
The underlined is not in the rule for Rites of Teleportation. It specifically says all units (not models) in the detachment have the special rule. An IC by default is treated as part of the unit it joins and therefore gains the benefit of special rules that the unit has UNLESS there is a specific restriction such as the one given to Deep Strike (Deep Strike requires all models in a unit to have Deep Strike before it functions. Rites of Teleportation does not have this wording.) There are actually very few special rules given to entire units... most of them are given to individual models and don't cause issues. Rites of Teleportation is an example of a special rule given on the unit level instead of the model level.
your quote is completely wrong.
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.
it does not specifically say all units in this detachment have this special rule.
all units in the detachment get the special rule prior to deployment.
then it states that the rule is usable by any unit in the detachment.
is the IC attached in that detachment?
the only RAW answer is No.
There is no RAW anywhere that states an IC joined to a unit does not continue to have its own faction and detachment type, and the unit is not a unit from x detachment if there are 9 models from detachment x and 1 model from detachment y in the unit. There is no RAW anywhere showing that a unit with models from multiple detachments counts as a unit from just a singular detachment, that is entirely fabricated by multiple posters in this thread.
blaktoof wrote: The issue is the special rule in question doesn't benefit the unit, but the unit from x detachment.
so the detachment and identity of belonging to the detachment cannot be ignored.
treating the IC as a member of the unit does not mean treating it as a member of the detachment.
Correct.
But you've yet to cite any rule that means joining unit Y from X detachment makes it somehow not unit Y from X detachment.
obviously counts as being a member of the unit does not extend to every rule, as this is blatantly false.
Really? The IC rules explicitly say "all rules purposes."
For example, joining an IC with the faction Space marine from a CAD to a Strike Squad with the faction Grey Knights does not make the IC count as GK faction despite the unit being made of models with the GK faction, faction is a rules purpose. How do you have a model without the required faction in the detachment? You are either ignorant of the rules or a cheater at this point.
Wait, what? What rules purpose are you looking at here?
For example, joing an IC from a CAD to a unit that is from a NSF does not make the IC a model from the NSF.
No one has pretended or asserted otherwise.
I won't bother touching on how the interpretation you are putting forth breaks the game in other ways as that has already been stated, and no one has bothered to address them.
Please, touch on that. You've asserted this fact multiple times throughout these threads and yet have never - not even once - shown where the game is broken.
There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available, within the restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
In order to organise their army into Detachments, a player will often need to use additional information found in their units’ Army List Entries, such as Faction and Battlefield Role.
Has to do with organizing your force roster, you can have a unit with models from more than one detachment after the game has begun by joining a unit from detachment 1 to a unit from detachment 2, the individual units on their force roster however as per the above RAW do not belong to more than 1 detachment on your force roster.
Correct! Yay! You've posted something that literally not a single person disagrees with! Great job!
Now - why is that relevant? Please explain using small words as apparently I'm cheating and could use an explanation as to how.
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.
The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.
The underlined is not in the rule for Rites of Teleportation. It specifically says all units (not models) in the detachment have the special rule. An IC by default is treated as part of the unit it joins and therefore gains the benefit of special rules that the unit has UNLESS there is a specific restriction such as the one given to Deep Strike (Deep Strike requires all models in a unit to have Deep Strike before it functions. Rites of Teleportation does not have this wording.) There are actually very few special rules given to entire units... most of them are given to individual models and don't cause issues. Rites of Teleportation is an example of a special rule given on the unit level instead of the model level.
your quote is completely wrong.
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.
it does not specifically say all units in this detachment have this special rule.
all units in the detachment get the special rule prior to deployment.
then it states that the rule is usable by any unit in the detachment.
is the IC attached in that detachment?
the only RAW answer is No.
I attach the IC to a Strike Squad.
Is the Strike Squad a unit in the NSF detachment? Yes or No. Please answer this simple question.
There is no RAW anywhere that states an IC joined to a unit does not continue to have its own faction and detachment type, and the unit is not a unit from x detachment if there are 9 models from detachment x and 1 model from detachment y in the unit. There is no RAW anywhere showing that a unit with models from multiple detachments counts as a unit from just a singular detachment, that is entirely fabricated by multiple posters in this thread.
Please, cite the rule that allows a unit to be from more than one detachment, or from zero detachments. Since you're asserting it's a fact, prove it.
Still no riles from Blaktoof showing how "for all rules purposes" doesn't actually mean ALL, and yet another assertion that the unit suddenly isn't part of a detachment, or is mixed, or something. Without providing any rules.
Oh, and look. Yet another time where Blaktoof has claimed that we are relying on the model changing detachment. I assume this is some specific form of not just blindness, but delusion, as literally not only has this never been claimed, the actual claims have been highlighted, in colours, to explain this is NOT the claim. It is utterly bizarre.
But even if you wish to disregard "Choosing Your Army" as irrelevant, how do you resolve rules such as Codex: Space Marine Chapter Tactics, which also specify the language "units in this detachment?" Does a White Scars character lose Hit & Run when joining a unit from an allied detachment? How about a Raven Guard character who is trying to confer Scout or Outflank to an allied unit joined during deployment? Does he get shunted back into normal Reserves when Outflanking? Is the unit destroyed absent permission to re-enter Reserves as soon as it declares a Scout or Outflank move with the character joined?
Gestalt unit detachment membership seems to open up a lot of holes in the ruleset. The only way I can fully resolve these situations by RAW is to use the concept of per-model membership.
The underlined is not true.
The unit that the IC attached to is still a "unit from this (grey knights NSF) detachment", no matter how you wish to parse the rules. The unit remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen from at all times. There are zero rules that change that.
The IC joining a unit from another detachment does not change the units detachment, nor does it magically remove the detachment (there are no rules to tell us the unit is no longer from X detachment). The IC is no longer a unit, so what detachment it is from is irrelevant as it belongs to a UNIT from the GK NSF detachment at this point (even though it was chosen as a member of X detachment, and remains a member of X detachment, but a member of a UNIT from GK NSF detachment for all rules purposes, including detachment rules that are based on the UNIT, not individual models).
The underlined is extremely true. Review the Chapter Tactics rules again.
Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Fight on the Move: Models in this detachment have the Hit & Run special rule. Note, this does not apply to models in units that include models in Terminator armour, Devastator Centurions or Assault Centurions.
Strike from the Shadows: Models in this detachment have the Scout special rule. In addition, on the first game turn, models in this detachment have the Stealth special rule. Note that units that include models with the Bulky or Very Bulky special rules do not benefit from either rule.
Please explain how you are allowing a White Scars or Raven Guard IC to join an allied unit while retaining their Chapter Tactics rules. You have claimed both that the gestalt unit counts as unit of the allied detachment for all rules purposes, but also still counts as a unit from the detachment the IC came from. Please cite rules that permit both of these claims to be true, without violating the restriction on how many detachments a unit can belong to.
BRB wrote:Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Does not apply as the Rites of Teleportation is a Detachment special rule, not a unit special rule. All units from the GK NSF detachment have the rule for being part of the detachment. When the IC joins the unit, the IC is a member of the unit and so will benefit from the rule.
You're kidding here, right? I quoted the relevant section just a couple posts up. Here it is again, with emphasis:
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote:
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.
How can you claim Rites of Teleportation is not a unit special rule when the Command Benefits rules explicitly tell you that it is indeed a special rule that is applied to the member models, which then form units?
BRB wrote:Preparing Reserves
Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must
arrive together.... when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character
I have deployed my IC with the GK NSF unit. The GK NSF unit is still a unit from the GK NSF detachment (again, no rule has removed this or changed this to a nondescript unit) and so can come in T1 by making a single roll, as it is a combined reserve unit.
brb wrote:INDEPENDENT CHARACTER
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.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
brb wrote:
DETACHMENTS
All of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong
to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
The unit must belong to a detachment. Units cannot belong to more than one detachment. I attach an IC to the GK NSF unit, what detachment is the Unit from? Why?
OK, so following this logic the IC cannot still be a member of his original chosen detachment, because he is now a member of the NSF detachment for all rules purposes. How is he still benefiting from detachment-restricted special rules, Warlord traits, from his original detachment, or adhering to Force Organization requirements? For all rules purposes means ALL rules purposes, you can't cherry pick one or the other without explicit rules permissions, which I have yet to see. Please provide quotes that allow you to pick and choose which rules purposes you are applying.
But even if you wish to disregard "Choosing Your Army" as irrelevant, how do you resolve rules such as Codex: Space Marine Chapter Tactics, which also specify the language "units in this detachment?" Does a White Scars character lose Hit & Run when joining a unit from an allied detachment? How about a Raven Guard character who is trying to confer Scout or Outflank to an allied unit joined during deployment? Does he get shunted back into normal Reserves when Outflanking? Is the unit destroyed absent permission to re-enter Reserves as soon as it declares a Scout or Outflank move with the character joined?
Gestalt unit detachment membership seems to open up a lot of holes in the ruleset. The only way I can fully resolve these situations by RAW is to use the concept of per-model membership.
The underlined is not true.
The unit that the IC attached to is still a "unit from this (grey knights NSF) detachment", no matter how you wish to parse the rules. The unit remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen from at all times. There are zero rules that change that.
The IC joining a unit from another detachment does not change the units detachment, nor does it magically remove the detachment (there are no rules to tell us the unit is no longer from X detachment). The IC is no longer a unit, so what detachment it is from is irrelevant as it belongs to a UNIT from the GK NSF detachment at this point (even though it was chosen as a member of X detachment, and remains a member of X detachment, but a member of a UNIT from GK NSF detachment for all rules purposes, including detachment rules that are based on the UNIT, not individual models).
The underlined is extremely true. Review the Chapter Tactics rules again.
Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Fight on the Move: Models in this detachment have the Hit & Run special rule. Note, this does not apply to models in units that include models in Terminator armour, Devastator Centurions or Assault Centurions.
Strike from the Shadows: Models in this detachment have the Scout special rule. In addition, on the first game turn, models in this detachment have the Stealth special rule. Note that units that include models with the Bulky or Very Bulky special rules do not benefit from either rule.
Please explain how you are allowing a White Scars or Raven Guard IC to join an allied unit while retaining their Chapter Tactics rules. You have claimed both that the gestalt unit counts as unit of the allied detachment for all rules purposes, but also still counts as a unit from the detachment the IC came from. Please cite rules that permit both of these claims to be true, without violating the restriction on how many detachments a unit can belong to.
Note it states MODELS, not UNITS. There is a difference. I stand by my statement.
This is the last time I will state this too: I have not, nor has anyone, ever claimed that the IC (not, unit .. IC) counts as a unit of the allied detachment. The IC is a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own. Please read what is being said, as the continued insistence that the opposite (ie: that an IC is suddenly being counted as a unit from 1, 2, no, detachments) is even being hinted at is incorrect and brings absolutely no credibility to your argument.
BRB wrote:Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
Does not apply as the Rites of Teleportation is a Detachment special rule, not a unit special rule. All units from the GK NSF detachment have the rule for being part of the detachment. When the IC joins the unit, the IC is a member of the unit and so will benefit from the rule.
You're kidding here, right? I quoted the relevant section just a couple posts up. Here it is again, with emphasis:
Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote:
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.
How can you claim Rites of Teleportation is not a unit special rule when the Command Benefits rules explicitly tell you that it is indeed a special rule that is applied to the member models, which then form units?
You highlighted something that reinforces exactly what I said, thank you. Special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment =/= unit based special rule. They are rules that apply to the detachment. Not entirely important for the debate at hand however, as the rule applies to the Unit in the NSF detachment, of which the unit is, even with an IC from another detachment attached.
BRB wrote:Preparing Reserves
Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must
arrive together.... when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character
I have deployed my IC with the GK NSF unit. The GK NSF unit is still a unit from the GK NSF detachment (again, no rule has removed this or changed this to a nondescript unit) and so can come in T1 by making a single roll, as it is a combined reserve unit.
brb wrote:INDEPENDENT CHARACTER
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.
The IC is a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
brb wrote:
DETACHMENTS
All of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong
to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
The unit must belong to a detachment. Units cannot belong to more than one detachment. I attach an IC to the GK NSF unit, what detachment is the Unit from? Why?
OK, so following this logic the IC cannot still be a member of his original chosen detachment, because he is now a member of the NSF detachment for all rules purposes.
No, he his not. He is a member of the Unit, not the detachment.
How is he still benefiting from detachment-restricted special rules, Warlord traits, from his original detachment, or adhering to Force Organization requirements? For all rules purposes means ALL rules purposes, you can't cherry pick one or the other without explicit rules permissions, which I have yet to see. Please provide quotes that allow you to pick and choose which rules purposes you are applying.
The Rites of Teleportation apply to Units from the NSF Detachment. The IC is and a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes (as per the IC rules). The IC does not change detachments, nor does it have to. It is a member of a Unit, and that Unit is from the NSF detachment. I have not cherry picked any rules. All applicable rules are applied when you attach an IC from another detachment to a unit from the NSF detachment.
Blaktoof refuses to answer, maybe you will:
When an IC from Detachment X is joined to Unit from Detachment Y, what detachment is the Unit from? What rules are you following/breaking to come to that conclusion?
Does the Rites of Teleportation rule apply to the Unit or to something else? If it applies to the unit, why is the IC not a member of that unit? If it applies to something else, where is that mentioned?
Rorschach9 wrote: Note it states MODELS, not UNITS. There is a difference. I stand by my statement.
And a unit is made up of one or more models, thus a unit has the special rules of its member models, subject to the restrictions laid out in the special rules themselves; certain rules confer benefits to only certain models, other rules benefit the entire unit, while some rules benefit only a subset of models in a unit based on other criteria (not having the Bulky rule, for instance). Regardless of scope, it's still a unit special rule.
Rorschach9 wrote: You highlighted something that reinforces exactly what I said, thank you. Special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment =/= unit based special rule. They are rules that apply to the detachment. Not entirely important for the debate at hand however, as the rule applies to the Unit in the NSF detachment, of which the unit is, even with an IC from another detachment attached.
You're welcome, but a unit rule is still a unit rule, regardless of whether it was granted by detachment membership, wargear, army list entry, or even the application of a different special rule. I will concede that this is less relevant to the current discussion, because there's no argument that the IC in question ever has the Rites of Teleportation rule, only whether or not the rule can act upon or affect him.
Rorschach9 wrote: Blaktoof refuses to answer, maybe you will: When an IC from Detachment X is joined to Unit from Detachment Y, what detachment is the Unit from? What rules are you following/breaking to come to that conclusion? Does the Rites of Teleportation rule apply to the Unit or to something else? If it applies to the unit, why is the IC not a member of that unit? If it applies to something else, where is that mentioned?
OK, I'll take a swing at it. Let's back up and re-quote the Rites of Teleportation special rule for reference.
Command Benefits, Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote: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.
First, the easy question: the Rites of Teleportation special rule is possessed by any models selected as part of the NSF detachment. The attached IC never receives it, because he was not selected as part of the NSF detachment, and therefore does not gain that detachment's Command Benefits. However, the rule itself acts on the entire unit as a whole, much like the Stubborn special rule, but it contains a qualification that only allows it to act upon units in this [Grey Knights Nemesis Strike Force] detachment. As at least one model has the Rites of Teleportation rule, it attempts to act on the combined unit when you check for Reserves on turn 1, forcing us to determine whether or not the combined unit is a member of the NSF detachment.
This brings us to your first question. When you selected your army, you had a NSF detachment Y and a CAD detachment X. The IC you took from Detachment X is a member of Detachment X, and recieves all the Command Benefits and special rules commensurate with that status. Now, you declare he is joining a unit from Detachment Y. If he becomes a member of Detachment Y (following "for all rules purposes") during deployment, he then loses those Command Benefits and special rules. If he was your army's Warlord, Detachment Y must now become your primary detachment, which may leave units still in Detachment X in illegal positions or stuck in Reserves with no way to carry out their intended deployment. This may also cause you to violate your force organization requirements if you were reliant upon that character to shift FOC slots dependent upon being a primary detachment (such as marked Lords from Codex: Chaos Space Marines). Assuming you can navigate that rules quagmire without breaking the game (the aforementioned RAW are at this point already broken) then Rites of Teleportation may act upon the combined unit and it may deploy from turn 1, run & shoot, etc..
Alternatively, he may remain a member of Detachment X, which then causes Rites of Teleportation to fail as the attached character, while indeed a member of unit subject to the rule, is not himself a member of Detachment Y. Semantically, you could argue this is in violation of the proscription against multiple detachment membership, but only if you evaluate detachment membership as a gestalt entity - something that certain other parts of the rules do not do (for instance, the wording of Command Benefits, which as you noted acts upon individual models). The only way out of the conundrum is to use GW's own sloppy wording to interpret "units" synonymously with "models" to follow RAW as closely as possible, and thus clear both hurdles at the same time.
(Edited to address your edit)
Rorschach9 wrote: This is the last time I will state this too: I have not, nor has anyone, ever claimed that the IC (not, unit .. IC) counts as a unit of the allied detachment. The IC is a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own. Please read what is being said, as the continued insistence that the opposite (ie: that an IC is suddenly being counted as a unit from 1, 2, no, detachments) is even being hinted at is incorrect and brings absolutely no credibility to your argument.
Then there's even less to debate. If you accept that the IC is not a member of [NSF] Detachment Y, then Rites of Teleportation does not act upon him in any case, because he is not a "unit in this [NSF] detachment," which is a explicit qualification of the rule itself.
Command Benefits, Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote: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.
First, the easy question: the Rites of Teleportation special rule is possessed by any models selected as part of the NSF detachment.
Incorrect. It is a detachment special rule that is conferred upon units from the NSF detachment, not possessed by models. Model =/= unit, even though units are made up of models.
The attached IC never receives it, because he was not selected as part of the NSF detachment, and therefore does not gain that detachment's Command Benefits. However, the rule itself acts on the entire unit as a whole, much like the Stubborn special rule, but it contains a qualification that only allows it to act upon units in this [Grey Knights Nemesis Strike Force] detachment. As at least one model has the Rites of Teleportation rule, it attempts to act on the combined unit when you check for Reserves on turn 1, forcing us to determine whether or not the combined unit is a member of the NSF detachment.
This brings us to your first question. When you selected your army, you had a NSF detachment Y and a CAD detachment X. The IC you took from Detachment X is a member of Detachment X, and recieves all the Command Benefits and special rules commensurate with that status. Now, you declare he is joining a unit from Detachment Y.
So far, so good, yes.
If he becomes a member of Detachment Y (following "for all rules purposes") during deployment, he then loses those Command Benefits and special rules.
No. He does not change detachments. Nobody claims he changes detachments (oops, there I go breaking my promise to make that the last time i mentioned this). There are no rules to allow this. The IC is still a member of detachment X, though he is no longer a unit of his own. The IC is now a member of a Unit from detachment Y however.
If he was your army's Warlord, Detachment Y must now become your primary detachment,
As the Warlord does not change detachments (as the rules do not allow this) this is incorrect.
Alternatively, he may remain a member of Detachment X, which then causes Rites of Teleportation to fail as the attached character, while indeed a member of unit subject to the rule, is not himself a member of Detachment Y.
Fortunately Rites of Teleportation affects the Unit, not individual models.
The only way out of the conundrum is to use GW's own sloppy wording to interpret "units" synonymously with "models" to follow RAW as closely as possible, and thus clear both hurdles at the same time.
Not altering the rules works perfectly fine if you understand how they actually interact.
Rorschach9 wrote: This is the last time I will state this too: I have not, nor has anyone, ever claimed that the IC (not, unit .. IC) counts as a unit of the allied detachment. The IC is a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own. Please read what is being said, as the continued insistence that the opposite (ie: that an IC is suddenly being counted as a unit from 1, 2, no, detachments) is even being hinted at is incorrect and brings absolutely no credibility to your argument.
Then there's even less to debate. If you accept that the IC is not a member of [NSF] Detachment Y, then Rites of Teleportation does not act upon him in any case, because he is not a "unit in this [NSF] detachment," which is a explicit qualification of the rule itself.
We have always accepted the IC is not a member of a different detachment than the one he was chosen for. And even addressing my edit you failed to notice that he is not a UNIT at all when joined to the Unit from the NSF detachment. Why is this so difficult to understand? The IC is a MEMBER OF A UNIT. What detachment is that UNIT from?
In short, it boils down to this question: Why does it matter what each Model possess when the Rule triggers off the Unit as a whole?
The argument has always been that this Rule targets the Unit, so there is no Restriction based on what each individual Model does or does not possess. If you believe they are incorrect, please quote the actual Restriction within the Rule which shows that the status of each individual Model must be confirmed before the Rule can be Resolved. There are Special Rules out there which target a Unit as a whole, but also contain Restrictions requiring each individual Model to have X or Y, so it is clear the Authors understand the concept of requiring a specific Restriction to over-turn a previously granted permission. So where in the body of this Rule are similar instructions telling us we do not have permission to Resolve this Rule unless all the Models in the Unit have access to it?
Command Benefits, Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote: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.
First, the easy question: the Rites of Teleportation special rule is possessed by any models selected as part of the NSF detachment.
Incorrect. It is a detachment special rule that is conferred upon units from the NSF detachment, not possessed by models. Model =/= unit, even though units are made up of models.
And again, you are ignoring the Command Benefits rules under "Choosing Your Army." The command benefit grants a rule to the model. From that point on, the model possesses that rule. There is no RAW distinction between rules granted inherently, by wargear, or by other rules.
Creeperman wrote: The attached IC never receives it, because he was not selected as part of the NSF detachment, and therefore does not gain that detachment's Command Benefits. However, the rule itself acts on the entire unit as a whole, much like the Stubborn special rule, but it contains a qualification that only allows it to act upon units in this [Grey Knights Nemesis Strike Force] detachment. As at least one model has the Rites of Teleportation rule, it attempts to act on the combined unit when you check for Reserves on turn 1, forcing us to determine whether or not the combined unit is a member of the NSF detachment.
This brings us to your first question. When you selected your army, you had a NSF detachment Y and a CAD detachment X. The IC you took from Detachment X is a member of Detachment X, and recieves all the Command Benefits and special rules commensurate with that status. Now, you declare he is joining a unit from Detachment Y.
So far, so good, yes.
Creeperman wrote: If he becomes a member of Detachment Y (following "for all rules purposes") during deployment, he then loses those Command Benefits and special rules.
No. He does not change detachments. Nobody claims he changes detachments (oops, there I go breaking my promise to make that the last time i mentioned this). There are no rules to allow this. The IC is still a member of detachment X, though he is no longer a unit of his own. The IC is now a member of a Unit from detachment Y however.
If you grant unit from Detachment Y (with attached IC from Detachment X with it's own benefits) a command benefit that is explicity restricted to members of Detachment Y, how have you complied with the benefit's restrictions? You're arguing that the attached IC is a member of Detachment X, and for all rules purposes is also a member of a unit of Detachment Y. The rules prohibit this scenario, since he cannot be (or "count as for all rules purposes") a member of both detachments. There's no RAW answer to that.
Creeperman wrote: Alternatively, he may remain a member of Detachment X, which then causes Rites of Teleportation to fail as the attached character, while indeed a member of unit subject to the rule, is not himself a member of Detachment Y.
Fortunately Rites of Teleportation affects the Unit, not individual models.
It affects a subset of the unit, namely that part that is a member of Detachment Y.
Creeperman wrote: The only way out of the conundrum is to use GW's own sloppy wording to interpret "units" synonymously with "models" to follow RAW as closely as possible, and thus clear both hurdles at the same time.
Not altering the rules works perfectly fine if you understand how they actually interact.
Rorschach9 wrote: This is the last time I will state this too: I have not, nor has anyone, ever claimed that the IC (not, unit .. IC) counts as a unit of the allied detachment. The IC is a member of the unit joined for all rules purposes. The IC is no longer a unit of its own. Please read what is being said, as the continued insistence that the opposite (ie: that an IC is suddenly being counted as a unit from 1, 2, no, detachments) is even being hinted at is incorrect and brings absolutely no credibility to your argument.
Then there's even less to debate. If you accept that the IC is not a member of [NSF] Detachment Y, then Rites of Teleportation does not act upon him in any case, because he is not a "unit in this [NSF] detachment," which is a explicit qualification of the rule itself.
We have always accepted the IC is not a member of a different detachment than the one he was chosen for. And even addressing my edit you failed to notice that he is not a UNIT at all when joined to the Unit from the NSF detachment. Why is this so difficult to understand? The IC is a MEMBER OF A UNIT. What detachment is that UNIT from?
The unit is given the rule. Not the models, the unit.
Apparently this is impossible to understand as there seems to be this thought that models=units=models.
Apparently it is impossible to understand, as the command benefit Rite of Teleportation is a special rule that is explicitly granted to the MODELS. The rule itself potentially interacts with the whole unit, but is by no means necessarily granted to it.
Creeperman, if I have a unit that has a special rule that says "At the beginning of the game nominate one unit to be marked. When this unit shoots or makes close combat attacks against the marked unit, it re-rolls To Hit rolls and To Wound rolls of 1." would you claim that an attached IC does not benefit?
Why or why not?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alternatively, if I have a NSF IC attached to a CAD Troop choice, and the IC is 2.9" away from an objective (and is thee closest model), and there is an enemy HQ unit 2" away, do I claim the Objective as per Objective Secured?
Creeper - the general rule is overridden by th exceedingly specific one granting it to units. Tht appears to be the roof of your confusion on the matter.
Normally they're given to models, this is given to the unit.
It isn't even that uncommon, Game Workshop has tied a few 'Model Specific' Rules into the Unit as a whole in the past. Every time it leads to confusion, speculation as to intent and even 'black hole' situations where the Rules stop functioning entirely....
Creeperman wrote: It affects a subset of the unit, namely that part that is a member of Detachment Y.
No, it affects the unit. You've inserted the requirement that all models in the unit be from Detachment Y - such a requirement doesn't exist in the rules.
Apparently it is impossible to understand, as the command benefit Rite of Teleportation is a special rule that is explicitly granted to the MODELS. The rule itself potentially interacts with the whole unit, but is by no means necessarily granted to it.
The IC doesn't gain the rule. We haven't asserted that it does.
Since the rule allows the unit to do something, and the unit includes the IC, why are you denying the rule can be used?
Happyjew wrote:Creeperman, if I have a unit that has a special rule that says "At the beginning of the game nominate one unit to be marked. When this unit shoots or makes close combat attacks against the marked unit, it re-rolls To Hit rolls and To Wound rolls of 1." would you claim that an attached IC does not benefit?
Why or why not?
Alternatively, if I have a NSF IC attached to a CAD Troop choice, and the IC is 2.9" away from an objective (and is thee closest model), and there is an enemy HQ unit 2" away, do I claim the Objective as per Objective Secured?
I'm assuming the stipulated IC is from a different detachment for the first case? In the case you present yes, the IC certainly does benefit from the rule, as there is no restrictive language in the special rule. If the rule instead read "At the beginning of the game nominate one unit to be marked. When units from this detachment shoot or makes close combat attacks against the marked unit, they may re-rolls To Hit rolls and To Wound rolls of 1" then I would say no, because the IC would not be a member of the detachment, as required by the rule.
In your second case I would say no, because the IC is not a member of the CAD and therefore may not receive Command Benefits that are based on detachment membership, as Objective Secured is.
WH40K 7e wrote:Objective Secured: All Troop units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if any enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Creeper - the general rule is overridden by th exceedingly specific one granting it to units. Tht appears to be the roof of your confusion on the matter.
Normally they're given to models, this is given to the unit.
Nos -
There is no rule being granted to the unit collectively. The effect of the rule granted to the individual models targets the unit. It's like a Chaos Icon granting Fearless to a model, which then allows the entire unit to automatically pass Morale tests. In this case, every model in e.g. a GK NSF Terminator squad has the Rites of Teleportation rule, so this is a distinction without a difference until you add an outside IC to the mix. Even then, it still wouldn't make a difference except that the Rites of Teleportation special rule contains the qualifier "units from this detachment," which is what trips up the attached IC. Either you must break the rule making him part of the unit for all rules purposes, or you must break the rule making him (effectively "counts-as") part of multiple detachments at once, or you must treat detachment membership separately from unit membership.
Creeperman wrote: It affects a subset of the unit, namely that part that is a member of Detachment Y.
No, it affects the unit. You've inserted the requirement that all models in the unit be from Detachment Y - such a requirement doesn't exist in the rules.
It affects "units from this detachment." If a unit with that special rule is not from Detachment Y, does the unit still benefit from the rule?
Creeperman wrote: Apparently it is impossible to understand, as the command benefit Rite of Teleportation is a special rule that is explicitly granted to the MODELS. The rule itself potentially interacts with the whole unit, but is by no means necessarily granted to it.
The IC doesn't gain the rule. We haven't asserted that it does.
Since the rule allows the unit to do something, and the unit includes the IC, why are you denying the rule can be used?
Apparently Nos was asserting that units are granted (not merely affected by) the Rites of Teleportation special rule, per the post I quoted. If he was referencing something else I apologize for misunderstanding him,
I believe permission to use the rule is denied because the unit contains a model that is not "from this [NSF] detachment," and there is no way to make him (or consider him) part of the detachment without breaking other rules.
Creeperman wrote: It affects a subset of the unit, namely that part that is a member of Detachment Y.
No, it affects the unit. You've inserted the requirement that all models in the unit be from Detachment Y - such a requirement doesn't exist in the rules.
It affects "units from this detachment." If a unit with that special rule is not from Detachment Y, does the unit still benefit from the rule?
Please, demonstrate how that Strike Squad that was purchased as part of the NSF detachment is not from the NSF detachment. Use rules.
Creeperman wrote: Apparently it is impossible to understand, as the command benefit Rite of Teleportation is a special rule that is explicitly granted to the MODELS. The rule itself potentially interacts with the whole unit, but is by no means necessarily granted to it.
The IC doesn't gain the rule. We haven't asserted that it does.
Since the rule allows the unit to do something, and the unit includes the IC, why are you denying the rule can be used?
Apparently Nos was asserting that units are granted (not merely affected by) the Rites of Teleportation special rule, per the post I quoted. If he was referencing something else I apologize for misunderstanding him,
I believe permission to use the rule is denied because the unit contains a model that is not "from this [NSF] detachment," and there is no way to make him (or consider him) part of the detachment without breaking other rules.
Why is that relevant?
The unit is allowed to do something. Yes or no?
The IC is part of the unit. Yes or no?
The IC doesn't need to be (and never is, and has never been argued to have been) part of the NSF detachment.
rigeld2 wrote: Please, demonstrate how that Strike Squad that was purchased as part of the NSF detachment is not from the NSF detachment. Use rules.
I didn't say it wasn't. I asked IF a unit somehow gained a the Rites of Teleportation special rule, as it is written in the GK codex, but was not selected as part of the the NSF detachment, could it benefit? The answer to that hypothetical is no, it cannot, because Rites of Teleportation 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."
rigeld2 wrote: Why is that relevant?
The unit is allowed to do something. Yes or no?
The IC is part of the unit. Yes or no?
The IC doesn't need to be (and never is, and has never been argued to have been) part of the NSF detachment.
It's relevant because the rules say it's relevant. The unit is allowed to do something, if it is part of the NSF detachment. The IC is part of the unit. The IC is not part of the detachment. Therefore the unit cannot use the rule without breaching RAW.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Incorrect. The unit is still from the detachment. The model isn't
Unless you are claiming the unit is from two detachments now? Please, cite actual rules to back up your flip flopping assertions
Are they part of two detachments? Yes or no. If yes, page and graph Are they part of no detachment? As above
The rules as presented currently mean they are from th nah detachment. Literally nothing you have posted ones anywhere close to altering this fact.
I have provided rules cites with every single one of my posts. The only flip-flopping going on here is on your insistence that an IC can be part of a unit for some purposes but not others.
Once again, you are claiming that the unit with attached IC is a NSF member because he's a member of the joined unit "for all purposes," (Independent Characters, Special Rules, WH40K 7E) and the joined unit, on its own, is indisputably an NSF member unit (Choosing Your Army, WH40K 7E). Simultaneously, you and everyone else have been adamant that you are not changing the IC's detachment, and that he is still a full member of it. OK then, please explain, with rules cites, how your IC is not in violation of the restriction of being a member of two detachments (Choosing Your Army, WH40K 7E), which comes part and parcel of "all rules purposes." You just reiterated he's still a CAD member, then stated he's part of the NSF "for all rules purposes" because his unit is. You have him drawing Command Benefits from both detachments (Ideal Mission Commander, Combined Arms Detachment, Choosing Your Army, WH40K 7E and Rites of Teleportation, Nemesis Strike Formation, Codex: Grey Knights). How is this possibly following RAW?
Can we please leave the straw-men out of this?
It has been pointed out many times that no one is stating the Independent Character switches detachment, gains the Special Rule directly or anything else which involves the Character belonging to two detachments simultaneously.
We're all in agreement the character isn't leaving his original detachment. That's not the argument.
Nos seems convinced the character gains the rule directly, as he stated in this post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Creeper - the general rule is overridden by th exceedingly specific one granting it to units. Tht appears to be the roof of your confusion on the matter.
Normally they're given to models, this is given to the unit.
The character being in two detachments at once however is the central point of argument, and for something that no one is supposedly arguing, it seems to be argued an awful lot. If detachment membership is gestalt by unit, and the joining IC isn't leaving his original detachment (because he can't, and we're all in agreement on that), then how can he also be a member of the joined unit "for all rules purposes," which is in this context being argued as a member of the Nemesis Strike Force, without also being a member of two detachments, in direct contravention of the RAW?
Detachments, Choosing your Army, WH40K 7E wrote:However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.
There's no way around it, unless detachment membership isn't unit based at all, and must be evaluated per-model instead. That's my argument.
Creeperman - I have a unit of Tac Marins. I join a Space Marine Chapter Master to the unit. Do I still have a Tac Marine unit, or is it something else?
While that is an interesting side argument, mostly in what it means to a whole bunch of other Rules, I do not see how it is relevant to the situation at hand. The Rule grants permission for the Unit to resolve X, and lacks any Restriction based on the Models within that Unit, so what prevents the Unit from Resolving X?
Happyjew wrote: Creeperman - I have a unit of Tac Marins. I join a Space Marine Chapter Master to the unit. Do I still have a Tac Marine unit, or is it something else?
You have a unit of Tac Marines with an attached Chapter Master. But answer me this: I have a White Scars Tactical Squad, to which I join a Raven Guard Captain in power armor (no jump pack or bike, to keep things simpler). What special rules does the squad sergeant have by virtue of the Chapter Tactics special rule?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: While that is an interesting side argument, mostly in what it means to a whole bunch of other Rules, I do not see how it is relevant to the situation at hand.
The Rule grants permission for the Unit to resolve X, and lacks any Restriction based on the Models within that Unit, so what prevents the Unit from Resolving X?
If you're willing to break the rules about multiple membership? Nothing at all at that point.
Happyjew wrote: Creeperman - I have a unit of Tac Marins. I join a Space Marine Chapter Master to the unit. Do I still have a Tac Marine unit, or is it something else?
You have a unit of Tac Marines with an attached Chapter Master. But answer me this: I have a White Scars Tactical Squad, to which I join a Raven Guard Captain in power armor (no jump pack or bike, to keep things simpler). What special rules does the squad sergeant have by virtue of the Chapter Tactics special rule?.
He has the Hit and Run special rule. Not sure why this is relevant.
I do not think the multiple detachment membership rule exists outside of the game prior to deployment, I think it is solely there for organizing units into detachments. This is shown later in the paragraph when they reference it is being used to organize units.
If that rule existed outside of organizing an army it would mean you could not join an IC to another unit from a different detachment, and would make things like battle brothers never work for joining units together.
Rigeld2- I do not know if you are just not reading what other people post then replying to them, or are actually trying to misrepresent peoples statements. I have actually answered the question I claim I refuse to answer at least 3 times in this thread, as well as having answered it in past threads where we have had this topic discussed.
If you have 2 detachments
CAD
HQ- Chapter master
Troop- Scouts
Troop- SCouts
NSF
HQ-Brother Captain
Troops-Strikesquad
Troops-Strikesquad
Elites-Paladins
you decide to play against someone, they have whatever.
prior to deployment you write the special rules for the above units on your force roster
CAD
HQ- Chapter master, (wargear, unit special rules, reroll warlord trait[from being in detachment])
Troop- Scouts (wargear, unit special rules, ob sec [detachment])
Troop- Scouts (wargear, unit special rules, ob sec [detachment])
NSF
HQ-Brother Captain (wargear, unit special rules, Brotherhood Commander [detachment], rites of teleportation [detachment])
Troops-Strikesquad (wargear, unit special rules, rites of teleportation [detachment])
Troops-Strikesquad (wargear, unit special rules, rites of teleportation [detachment])
Elites-Paladins (wargear, unit special rules, rites of teleportation [detachment])
So you have two detachments, one is faction space marines, the other is faction grey knights. All models in each detachment have their own separate faction, and separate detachment identity as well as unit identity.
At this point you can opt to attach an IC from the NSF to the scouts. The scouts and the IC are a unit, the scouts have their own special rules and the IC has its own, neither confer special rules to each other UNLESS the special rule speficially states the entire unit benefits from it if at least one model has it.
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.
Obviously the IC is part of the unit, but does not gain the units detachment, nor the units faction. You have a unit made up of 5 scouts from a unit entry in detachment CAD and an IC from a unit entry in detachment NSF. Are all the models in the same unit? Yes. Are all the models in the unit the same faction? No. Are all the models in the same unit in the same detachment? No.
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.
in regards to rites of teleporation, the special rule does not specifically state it extends to all models in the unit, or the entire unit if at least one model has it, as is required by the RAW. Therefore by default an attached IC, without the rule, would not gain access to the rule & a unit without the rule attached to an IC with the rule would not gain access to the rule.
The RoT rule specifies the reserve roll can be made for any unit in that detachment. Look at the NSF detachment above, is the unit being affected in that detachment?
part of it is.
refer to the section on ICs joining units with special rules, does the special rule have the wording of stubborn/shrouded that it works on the whole unit if at least one model has it? No.
The only way the RoT would work is if it it speficially stated it extends to the unit if one model has it, or the IC/unit counted as part of the detachment.
the unit of NSF strikesquad with the joined chapter master as the same outcome. You have a model that does not have the rule, and is not in the detachment. The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment, it is a unit with models from the NSF detachment and a model from the CAD. That is not a unit from the NSF detachment because of the presence of the model which is a unit from the CAD. There is no RAW that the IC loses its identity and counts as a member of the same detachment. If there were in this case it would also have to count as the same faction as the detachment has the clear restriction "grey knights faction only" is the IC from the CAD that faction? also no. So 2 different very clear RAW has been broken at this point claiming that the IC is part of the detachment.
The strike squad is a unit from the nsf detachment aka "any unit in this detachment from NSF detachment" the strikesquad + IC from not the detachment is not.
If anyone can find some RAW that a joined IC loses its detachment identity, or gains that of the unit it joins, feel free to post it.
there is 0 way the IC can benefit from it otherwise due to the actual RAW.
No one has once claimed that the IC loses his detachment or changes detachment.
You've been informed of this multiple times. It has been repeated multiple times that we are not claiming that. You insist on bringing up that argument. You then "defeat" the argument to prove your side. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the definition of a Strawman argument?
People on your side have claimed that the unit loses its Detachment when an IC joins it, however. Unless I'm mis-reading their claims.
there is 0 way the IC can benefit from it otherwise due to the actual RAW.
No one has once claimed that the IC loses his detachment or changes detachment.
You've been informed of this multiple times. It has been repeated multiple times that we are not claiming that. You insist on bringing up that argument. You then "defeat" the argument to prove your side. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the definition of a Strawman argument?
People on your side have claimed that the unit loses its Detachment when an IC joins it, however. Unless I'm mis-reading their claims.
it has been claimed multiple times in this thread by certain posters that when an IC joins a unit the IC loses its faction and detachment, and somehow gains the other so they can count as a "unit in this detachment" which is a specific detachment they are not in.
not sure how you have failed to notice what you are typing.
No one on my side has claimed the unit loses its detachment, that is false and misquoted by you and others and at this point irritating that you continue to do so as the post you were replying to actually states something other than that.
simple question.
1 IC, in a CAD faction Space marines
joins a unit of strike squad in NSF faction grey knights.
is the unit, comprised of models from different detachments
or is it a unit solely of models from the NSF detachment with the faction greyknights?
blaktoof wrote: it has been claimed multiple times in this thread by certain posters that when an IC joins a unit the IC loses its faction and detachment, and somehow gains the other so they can count as a "unit in this detachment" which is a specific detachment they are not in.
Please quote where this has been said.
No one on my side has claimed the unit loses its detachment, that is false and misquoted by you and others and at this point irritating that you continue to do so as the post you were replying to actually states something other than that.
Oh really? Perhaps you forgot this:
blaktoof wrote: The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment if a model in the unit is not from the NSF detachment..
simple question.
1 IC, in a CAD faction Space marines
joins a unit of strike squad in NSF faction grey knights.
is the unit, comprised of models from different detachments
or is it a unit solely of models from the NSF detachment with the faction greyknights?
It is a NSF unit composed of models from multiple detachments.
JinxDragon wrote: Think it is yellow triangle of friendship time for this thread.
Agreed. Again blaktoof has managed to lie about the content of others posts.
Creeper - read what you quoted of me again. Note the word "UNIT", not "MODEL" is in there. While attached, the IC is NOT A UNIT any longer. THis is absolutely clear in the rules. If you disagree, I will happily shoot your IC all day long, no LOS! wounds off to anyone, regardless of his position in the attached unit. So, inadvisable.
The NSF unit has the rule. Joining the IC to the unit does not stop the unit being an NSF detachment unit, as when you come to determine "is this an NSF unit?" you MUST at THAT POINT treat the IC as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, and so MUST answer "YES!" in a loud, clear and strident voice.
Meaning, as the unit can evoke the rule, the unit IS from the NSF detachment and therefore meets the criteria to evoke the rule, the unit can THEN evoke the rule. Absolutely RAW this is all supported.
JinxDragon wrote: Think it is yellow triangle of friendship time for this thread.
Agreed. Again blaktoof has managed to lie about the content of others posts.
Creeper - read what you quoted of me again. Note the word "UNIT", not "MODEL" is in there. While attached, the IC is NOT A UNIT any longer. THis is absolutely clear in the rules. If you disagree, I will happily shoot your IC all day long, no LOS! wounds off to anyone, regardless of his position in the attached unit. So, inadvisable.
The NSF unit has the rule. Joining the IC to the unit does not stop the unit being an NSF detachment unit, as when you come to determine "is this an NSF unit?" you MUST at THAT POINT treat the IC as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, and so MUST answer "YES!" in a loud, clear and strident voice.
Meaning, as the unit can evoke the rule, the unit IS from the NSF detachment and therefore meets the criteria to evoke the rule, the unit can THEN evoke the rule. Absolutely RAW this is all supported.
so you have RAW to support that a unit that has models from more than 1 detachment is a unit from only one detachment.
rigeld2 wrote: Please, demonstrate how that Strike Squad that was purchased as part of the NSF detachment is not from the NSF detachment. Use rules.
I didn't say it wasn't. I asked IF a unit somehow gained a the Rites of Teleportation special rule, as it is written in the GK codex, but was not selected as part of the the NSF detachment, could it benefit? The answer to that hypothetical is no, it cannot, because Rites of Teleportation 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."
So an irrelevant hypothetical then. Awesome.
rigeld2 wrote: Why is that relevant?
The unit is allowed to do something. Yes or no?
The IC is part of the unit. Yes or no?
The IC doesn't need to be (and never is, and has never been argued to have been) part of the NSF detachment.
It's relevant because the rules say it's relevant. The unit is allowed to do something, if it is part of the NSF detachment. The IC is part of the unit. The IC is not part of the detachment. Therefore the unit cannot use the rule without breaching RAW.
So joining an IC to the unit removes the unit from the NSF detachment?
Cite rules - because there are none that support that statement.
Looking over the 3 other threads on this topic I found a little bit of information that was never really been addressed.
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.
Combined Reserve Units:
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if
any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must
arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon
any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case,
when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the
unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.
The underlined is giving permission to roll for Reserves for the NSF unit and to then deploy the attached IC with it as a combined unit. The NSF unit has Rites of Teleportation (even if an IC is attached) and therefore can make the reserves roll on turn 1 as the above rule says it can. No where is it needed that all models in the unit have the rule and when rolling for reserves you do not need to roll for the IC if it is attached to the unit.
JinxDragon wrote: Think it is yellow triangle of friendship time for this thread.
Agreed. Again blaktoof has managed to lie about the content of others posts.
Creeper - read what you quoted of me again. Note the word "UNIT", not "MODEL" is in there. While attached, the IC is NOT A UNIT any longer. THis is absolutely clear in the rules. If you disagree, I will happily shoot your IC all day long, no LOS! wounds off to anyone, regardless of his position in the attached unit. So, inadvisable.
The NSF unit has the rule. Joining the IC to the unit does not stop the unit being an NSF detachment unit, as when you come to determine "is this an NSF unit?" you MUST at THAT POINT treat the IC as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, and so MUST answer "YES!" in a loud, clear and strident voice.
Meaning, as the unit can evoke the rule, the unit IS from the NSF detachment and therefore meets the criteria to evoke the rule, the unit can THEN evoke the rule. Absolutely RAW this is all supported.
so you have RAW to support that a unit that has models from more than 1 detachment is a unit from only one detachment.
Yes, already quoted. "For all rules purpose". Is detachment a rules purpose? Yes? Shucks, guess it meet s the requirements then.
Deny this. Page and graph, or finally accept your position is untenable.
JinxDragon wrote: Think it is yellow triangle of friendship time for this thread.
Agreed. Again blaktoof has managed to lie about the content of others posts.
Creeper - read what you quoted of me again. Note the word "UNIT", not "MODEL" is in there. While attached, the IC is NOT A UNIT any longer. THis is absolutely clear in the rules. If you disagree, I will happily shoot your IC all day long, no LOS! wounds off to anyone, regardless of his position in the attached unit. So, inadvisable.
The NSF unit has the rule. Joining the IC to the unit does not stop the unit being an NSF detachment unit, as when you come to determine "is this an NSF unit?" you MUST at THAT POINT treat the IC as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, and so MUST answer "YES!" in a loud, clear and strident voice.
Meaning, as the unit can evoke the rule, the unit IS from the NSF detachment and therefore meets the criteria to evoke the rule, the unit can THEN evoke the rule. Absolutely RAW this is all supported.
so you have RAW to support that a unit that has models from more than 1 detachment is a unit from only one detachment.
Yes, already quoted. "For all rules purpose". Is detachment a rules purpose? Yes? Shucks, guess it meet s the requirements then.
Deny this. Page and graph, or finally accept your position is untenable.
And right back at you. Is your IC still a member of his original detachment? Is he still receiving Command Benefits from that detachment? Is he also using Rites of Teleportation under the theory that he's part of the GK NSF detachment "for all rules purposes?" Then you are breaking the rules, because you just acknowledged he's part of two detachments for all rules purposes. The restriction is a rule, which you broke. Please cite rules refuting this. Page and paragraph, thanks.
Zimko, You are very much correct about the order of operations for the Rule interactions involved, but I doubt it will matter. All Rules quotes on the matter have been completely ignored at this point, in favour of the opposition demands that we solve a irrelevant problem before they will accept the concept. This irrelevant problem, while interesting, is nothing but a Straw-man because it is a far easier point for the opposition to argue over. It would be far easier for them to keep the debate focused on that one curiosity then to address the many Rule quotes that have been put forth....
So thank you for once more showing the order of operations which these two Rules follow, it is a shame no one is listening.
The Terminator Squad IS from the NSF. I've said so all along. The problem is the IC who cannot join and benefit from their detachment membership as long as he has his own.
And the IC cannot join the unit under that interpretation, or you would be breaking the multiple detachment membership rule. Your concession is accepted, thanks.
Creeperman wrote: And the IC cannot join the unit under that interpretation, or you would be breaking the multiple detachment membership rule. Your concession is accepted, thanks.
Creeperman wrote: The Terminator Squad IS from the NSF. I've said so all along. The problem is the IC who cannot join and benefit from their detachment membership as long as he has his own.
Please, elaborate on the underlined.
Are you saying the IC stays his own unit when he joins another one?
Creeperman wrote: And the IC cannot join the unit under that interpretation, or you would be breaking the multiple detachment membership rule. Your concession is accepted, thanks.
Why? You have 1 unit from a single detachment.
Because you have a character from a CAD, subject to Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured (and/or other detachment restricted rules as appropriate), joined to a NSF formation subject to Brotherhood Commander and Rites of Teleportation. He can't be subject to both. I have quoted the rule over and over again. If he can't change his detachment (and he cannot) and he can't leave his detachment (and again, he cannot) then he is part of both detachments "for all rules purposes," which include the rule against being in multiple detachments.
Q.E.D., An outside IC cannot join a NSF unit and use Rites of Teleportation, because under the interpretation just given he can't join them in the first place.
Creeperman wrote: And the IC cannot join the unit under that interpretation, or you would be breaking the multiple detachment membership rule. Your concession is accepted, thanks.
Why? You have 1 unit from a single detachment.
Because you have a character from a CAD, subject to Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured (and/or other detachment restricted rules as appropriate)
Correct. Ideal Mission Commander takes effect before the game begins and does not affect a model, but a roll so that is irrelevant.
Objective Secured affects troops from the Primary Detachment. Is the IC a troop from the primary detachment?
, joined to a NSF formation subject to Brotherhood Commander and Rites of Teleportation. He can't be subject to both.
And .... he is not. The unit, which is a unit from the NSF Detachment (as per the rules) is subjected to the Rites of Teleportation.
I have quoted the rule over and over again. If he can't change his detachment (and he cannot) and he can't leave his detachment (and again, he cannot) then he is part of both detachments "for all rules purposes," which include the rule against being in multiple detachments.
He is not a member of multiple detachments. He has not changed detachments. He has not left his detachment. He has joined a unit, which is from a detachment, which has a rule that affects the unit, which he is a member of (regardless of detachment).
There is no detachment switching/dropping/adding. There is no "because the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments it cannot use the rule" as the rule only cares that the unit is from the detachment (which it demonstrably is).
Creeperman, Under your interpretation the Independent Character can never join another Unit, unless they are from the same Detachment. How do you explain Battle Brothers having specific permission to Join Units in other Detachments?
Or you can review the Rules again, and see they have nothing to do with individual Models but focus on the Unit itself....
You seem to be suffering from some kind of block when replying to me. I explicitly stated in bold that a character has no way to leave his detachment. Why do you keep attacking that strawman?
But more to the point, please explain to me how you are counting the character as a part of the NSF unit (and thus, as part of the NSF detachment for purposes of resolving Rites of Teleportation) without counting him as part of that unit for all other rules purposes (including the restrictions against multiple detachment membership), as stipulated by the Independent Character special rule?
You seem to be arguing now that the IC somehow now ISN'T a member of the joined squad for all purposes, or is a member for some purposes and not other more inconvenient ones. That's not what's written under the Independent Character rule.
Jinx -
Yes, that effectively does prohibit an allied IC from joining other detachment's units. It's not like this is the first time GW's sloppy RAW contradicts RAI.
Now, is that HIWPI? Of course not, but we're discussing what the rules as written actually say, not what we think GW might have meant when they wrote them.
You seem to be suffering from some kind of block when replying to me. I explicitly stated in bold that a character has no way to leave his detachment. Why do you keep attacking that strawman?
I am merely being complete in my replies as some have asserted, and continue to insist (or have simply abandoned the line of thinking), that it is possible (with no rules to back it up). Apparently not complete enough.
But more to the point, please explain to me how you are counting the character as a part of the NSF unit (and thus, as part of the NSF detachment for purposes of resolving Rites of Teleportation) without counting him as part of that unit for all other rules purposes (including the restrictions against multiple detachment membership), as stipulated by the Independent Character special rule?
IC from Detachment X
Unit from NSF Detachment
This is chosen when list building. This is now done and set in stone. Nothing can change these, as there are no rules to do so. We agree on that, yes?
IC Joining a Unit
IC from Detachment X joins Unit from NSF Detachment in Deep Strike Reserve.
The IC is now a member of the unit for all rules purposes. No rules are changing detachments, so detachments of individuals in the unit at this point is irrelevant.
The Unit (which is indisputably still a Unit from the NSF detachment) is affected by Rites of Teleportation (as per the rule).
The IC is a member of that unit, and as such is affected by the same rule.
There are no restrictions in Rites of Teleportation that deny the unit from using it if any member of another detachment joined it. It is, and remains, a Unit from the NSF detachment thus complying with the special rules requirements.
The Character is part of the NSF unit, but that does not mean it is part of the NSF detachment . It is a member of a unit. That unit has a rule that affects it and that rule has no model based restrictions or qualifiers within it.
You seem to be arguing now that the IC somehow now ISN'T a member of the joined squad for all purposes, or is a member for some purposes and not other more inconvenient ones. That's not what's written under the Independent Character rule.
No, I have not once changed my argument. The IC is a member of the Unit for all rules purposes. What rules purpose am I trying to argue he is not following?
The UNIT, which he is a member of, Is still a Unit from the NSF detachment.
As such, the Unit (as a whole) is subjected to Rites of Teleportation.
Creeperman wrote: But more to the point, please explain to me how you are counting the character as a part of the NSF unit (and thus, as part of the NSF detachment for purposes of resolving Rites of Teleportation) without counting him as part of that unit for all other rules purposes (including the restrictions against multiple detachment membership), as stipulated by the Independent Character special rule?
IC from Detachment X
Unit from NSF Detachment
This is chosen when list building. This is now done and set in stone. Nothing can change these, as there are no rules to do so. We agree on that, yes?
IC from Detachment X joins Unit from NSF Detachment in Deep Strike Reserve.
The IC is now a member of the unit for all rules purposes. No rules are changing detachments, so detachments of individuals in the unit at this point is irrelevant.
The Unit (which is indisputably still a Unit from the NSF detachment) is affected by Rites of Teleportation (as per the rule).
The IC is a member of that unit, and as such is affected by the same rule.
There are no restrictions in Rites of Teleportation that deny the unit from using it if any member of another detachment joined it. It is, and remains, a Unit from the NSF detachment thus complying with the special rules requirements.
The Character is part of the NSF unit, but that does not mean it is part of the NSF detachment . It is a member of a unit. That unit has a rule that affects it and that rule has no model based restrictions or qualifiers within it.
So here's where we part ways. I'm going to expand upon and rephrase your example to be more clear:
Start with a Ultramarines Chapter Master in Terminator armor ("the IC") from Primary CAD who is the Warlord, and a Terminator Squad ("the Squad") from Nemesis Strike Force. Both units choose to begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve.
The IC is the Warlord and is gains his rolled Warlord Trait, as well as the Combat Doctrines special rule granted to him via Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines).
The Squad is a unit from the Nemesis Strike Force detachment, and gains the Rites of Teleportation special rule, which is granted to all models from that detachment.
The Squad is a valid target for the Rites of Teleportation special rule, because it meets the requirements of being in Deep Strike Reserve, and being an NSF member unit.
The IC (on his own) is not a valid target, because while he is in Deep Strike Reserve, he is not an NSF member unit.
The IC attempts to joins the Squad and become a member for all rules purposes.
The IC is still a member of his Ultramarines CAD. He still has his Warlord trait, he still has Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), and he still has Combat Doctrines.
Following the rules for IC, he also counts as a member of the Squad for all purposes. The Squad is a member of the NSF, and thus has permission to execute the Rites of Teleportation rule.
The IC counts as a member of both his CAD and the NSF simultaneously. The rules tell us that this is not permissible, as multiple detachment membership is prohibited.
*** Game breaks at this point. Either you ignore the rule above, or you must separate the IC from the Squad. *** The Squad may now deploy using the Rites of Teleportation special rule, because it meets the requirements of being in Deep Strike Reserve, and being an NSF member unit.
You seem to be arguing now that the IC somehow now ISN'T a member of the joined squad for all purposes, or is a member for some purposes and not other more inconvenient ones. That's not what's written under the Independent Character rule.
No, I have not once changed my argument. The IC is a member of the Unit for all rules purposes. What rules purpose am I trying to argue he is not following?
The UNIT, which he is a member of, Is still a Unit from the NSF detachment.
As such, the Unit (as a whole) is subjected to Rites of Teleportation.
The rules purpose in question is being a member of the Nemesis Strike Force. If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.
Creeperman wrote: If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.
Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.
Creeperman wrote: If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.
Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.
No, but the rule does require the unit itself be a member of the NSF detachment. Is detachment membership a rule? Is the IC a part of the unit for all rules purposes?
Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote: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.
If people are really going to take 'for all rules purposes' to heart, then the IC does change detachment and can thus benefit from the NSF rule. Any other consequences we then have been playing wrong (chapter tactics or what have you).
If you accept that he doesn't change detachment, he can still join the unit and become a member of that unit, and the unit (which hasn't changed detachment) with him as a member can now deep strike.
Regardless of how many characters from how many different detachments join the unit, no matter whether you think that the character does or does not change detachment, the unit is always a NSF detachment unit and can deep strike.
Creeperman wrote: If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.
Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.
No, but the rule does require the unit itself be a member of the NSF detachment. Is detachment membership a rule? Is the IC a part of the unit for all rules purposes?
Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote: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.
Irrelevant question. Are you saying that the unit is no longer part of the NSF detachment?
When someone posts that an Independent Character can not Join a Battle Brother, even after being shown that there is a specific Rule that says the exact opposite, there is no point in continuing. It has also been shown many times that the dreaded "Independent Character Count As clause" that I despise would prevent a conflict from a Rule as Written perspective, even if it creates stupid outcomes elsewhere such as the entire Psychic Phase. It has also been highlighted even more times that these are Unit specific Rules, which do not bother to deal with individual Models within the Unit. Even the Rule about belonging to one Detachment at a time is fixated on Units so, technically, the Independent Character could belong to two if the Joining did somehow put the Model into a state of belonging to both.
If someone can state that more then three different Rule-Supported arguments are all irrelevant and stick to their flawed concept then even I will simply have to give up. And you know how stubborn I can be when I see a possible fault in someone's argument....
The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed. Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.
The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.
Jinx -
The dreaded "Independent Character Counts-As Clause" is the cause of this inconsistency, not the solution. And splitting hairs about GW's use of "model" versus "unit" in the same breath as discussing the abortion that is the Psychic Phase rules is somewhere between ironic and disingenuous. I already stated that I find the outcome of RAW to be both silly and stupid, and would not play it that way myself, but this forum is for discussion of how those silly and stupid rules are written, in all their inconsistent glory.
If you want to discuss opinions, feel free to start a discussion or a poll about HYWPI if you wish.
Creeperman wrote: The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.
The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.
Jinx -
The dreaded "Independent Character Counts-As Clause" is the cause of this inconsistency, not the solution. And splitting hairs about GW's use of "model" versus "unit" in the same breath as discussing the abortion that is the Psychic Phase rules is somewhere between ironic and disingenuous. I already stated that I find the outcome of RAW to be both silly and stupid, and would not play it that way myself, but this forum is for discussion of how those silly and stupid rules are written, in all their inconsistent glory.
If you want to discuss opinions, feel free to start a discussion or a poll about HYWPI if you wish.
Except for the rules for Battle Brothers and ICs joining other units, which make it quite clear that an IC from one detachment can join another unit from a different detachment. Also, the rules for combined units in Reserves only rolling once to enter play. That's three different sets of rules confirming that a IC from one detachment may legally join a unit from a different detachment, and be treated as a member of the unit for deployment from Reserves. With a conspicuous lack of any restrictions to counter these permissions, a non-NSF IC with Deep Strike that joins a Deep Striking NSF unit can by RAW roll for reserves on turn 1 per Rites of Teleportation.
Creeperman wrote: The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.
The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.
.
Except for the rule allowing it, and the proof given that there is no issue of course
Your argument is refuted, RAW you can DS the attached IC using the NSF RoT rule. Done.
Creeperman wrote: The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.
The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.
You mean despite the rule that explicitly allows it of course.
Which means that your assertion isn't actually the rules.
Thanks for your opinion though - even if it is demonstrably incorrect.
Question. Does the rule say "models cannot belong to multiple detachments" or does it say "units cannot belong to multiple detachments"?
If models, than Creeperman has a point - either the IC is part of two detachments simultaneously, or an IC can never join a BB unit, despite being given permission.
If unit, then when an IC joins, the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X".
Happyjew wrote: Question. Does the rule say "models cannot belong to multiple detachments" or does it say "units cannot belong to multiple detachments"?
If models, than Creeperman has a point - either the IC is part of two detachments simultaneously, or an IC can never join a BB unit, despite being given permission.
If unit, then when an IC joins, the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X".
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.
Which is why there is no point, it is as you say: "the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X"."
I do think creeperman is confused between unit and model, here. The NSF rule is ONLY coincerned with units. Multiple detachments is ONLY concerned with units.
Yes, the general rule for detachment benefits states models receive the rule - however it doesnt matter if one model in the unit doesnt have the rule, as long as one does, and the unit as a whole is NSF, then the uinit as a whole can use the rule.
So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?
OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?
Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.
Creeperman wrote: So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?
OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?
Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.
An UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines) does not get any benefit from "Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range" when he joins a non-Ultramarines Unit, no.
He does not get the benefit whether he has joined Tau, Eldar or a Tactical squad from a Black Templars Detachment.
Creeperman wrote: So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?
Wait - you didn't actually understand that? Do we need to go back to that argument?
Yes, the IC's unit ceases to exist when he joins another unit.
OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?
Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.
The Rule interaction is a lot more complicated then 'The Independent Character's original Unit vanishes for a bit,' but that is just the observable effect these Rules have.
Due to the "Independent Character Counts-As Clause," every Rule must treat the Independent Character as part of another Unit. Without far more specific instructions grating permission to ignore this Clause in X, Y or Z situations, there is simply no way for a Rule to every interact with the original Unit. This leads people to conclude that it is 'gone,' for if there is no way for the Game to interact with the Unit in question how can it exist from a Rule as Written perspective?
Curiously, even the Rule which defines Units would technically be caught by this clause... leaving the original unit consisting of 0 Models from a Rule perspective, so maybe it is good we can't interact with it at all.
JinxDragon wrote: The Rule interaction is a lot more complicated then 'The Independent Character's original Unit vanishes for a bit,' but that is just the observable effect these Rules have.
Due to the "Independent Character Counts-As Clause," every Rule must treat the Independent Character as part of another Unit. Without far more specific instructions grating permission to ignore this Clause in X, Y or Z situations, there is simply no way for a Rule to every interact with the original Unit. This leads people to conclude that it is 'gone,' for if there is no way for the Game to interact with the Unit in question how can it exist from a Rule as Written perspective?
Curiously, even the Rule which defines Units would technically be caught by this clause... leaving the original unit consisting of 0 Models from a Rule perspective, so maybe it is good we can't interact with it at all.
I agree with ambiguity is as much as i'll say. This argument is a bit of a pitfall i do not wish in on. Nem describes my thoughts quite well on the matter...
There is a lot of places where this clause causes problems, yes, but this is far from one of them. I have stated that no Rule should ever have a open-ended exception clause, there needs to be boundaries defined so X counts but Y does not, which is why I hate this clause but it still is a Written Rule.
joins a unit of strike squad in NSF faction grey knights.
is the unit, comprised of models from different detachments
or is it a unit solely of models from the NSF detachment with the faction greyknights?
It is a NSF unit composed of models from multiple detachments.
I see the merit in both sides of this issue. I now have to agree that as the unit was bought in detachment NSF, it still is part of that even if joined by others, thus all models in it would benefit from the Rites. I'm not sure if that was the intention, though.
Don't have any books with me, but are not SM chapter tactics more restrictive, the same way e.g. Battle Focus is?
The NSF unit is still part of that detachment, but the unit on the table is not from the NSF unit when every model in it is not from the NSF unit.
it is a Unit with Models from the NSF detachment , and models from another detachment.
the issue is the rites of teleportations states the unit has to be from the detachment.
the unit is not from the detachment if a single model in the unit is not from the detachment.
if it stated a model from a unit in this detachment
or
any models from a unit in this detachment
or
some models from a unit in this detachment
it would be as certain incorrect people in this thread are stating and you could attach a model not from the detachment, and the unit would be able to benefit from the rule.
the issue is the special rule is required by the RAW to specifically state it extends to any model in the unit if at least one model has it as per the wording of stubborn or shrouded.
Otherwise it is a special rule that requires all the models in the unit to be from the detachment, which it is when it states "units from the detachment"
units are made up of models, so all the models must be from the NSF detachment for that rule to effect the unit.
the IC is part of the unit, but it is not part of the detachment. there is nothing requiring it to extend that to the IC, and further there is nothing stating it does which is what would be RAW required as there is specific wording that when you create your army, before deployment no unit can belong to more than one detachment. You now need permission for a unit to count as being in another detachment, or count as being from another detachment than its own, or as stated above for the special rule to specifically state that it extends to all models in the unit if 1 has it as per the normal RAW required interaction of ICs with special rules wherein the IC does not gain the special rules of a unit it joins, regardless of counting as a member of the unit, and vice versa.
blaktoof wrote: The NSF unit is still part of that detachment, but the unit on the table is not from the NSF unit when every model in it is not from the NSF unit.
Provide rules support for this sentence. This is the absolute minimum required to prove your argument.
the unit is not from the detachment if a single model in the unit is not from the detachment.
Same assertion, same onus on you to actually prove your point using rules instead of assertions.
You've literally avoided citing this every time it's been asked. Please actually provide rules support for your assertion.
Edited by AgeOfEgos you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
go ahead please.
As I have already pointed you to the RAW above, which states what the rule says, states what the rules for ICs joining units with special rules states, and states what the detachment rules states, and you have completely failed to provide a single rules quote to support your utterly false made up HYWPI claim that you are pruporting is true.
its a permissive game, show the permission in the rulebook in plain RAW that you can state a unit is a unit from this detachment, when models in it are not from that detachment.
blaktoof wrote: the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?
Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).
And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.
blaktoof wrote: the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?
Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).
And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.
so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.
Understood.
No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.
No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.
you do realize there is a whole section on how joining units works with battle brothers and all?
IC from CAD with faction space marines, is allowed to join a unit of Strike Squad from NSF detachment, they do not lose their identity when they join the unit and follow certain rules.
Are you able to show
that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
and therefore have permission for the unit that contains models from more than one detachment to be a unit in that singular detachment?
ICs can legally join Battle Brother units per the IC rules and the Battle Brother rules. In addition, ICs count as the a member of the unit they join for all other rules purposes, unless a specific restriction is otherwise noted.
Combine units arrive together.
Units never lose their detachment status, nor can any unit change detachments.
Per the above paraphrased rules which have been repeatedly cited on previous pages, a SMIC with Deep Strike that joins a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves will arrive on a single die roll per the combined unit rules, and the unit can roll for deployment on turn 1 per the NSF rules because every model in the unit counts as a member of that unit per the IC rules. No restrictions exist that prevent the NSF unit from using Rites, nor are there any restrictions that prevent the IC from being included in the Rites.
The burden of proof is on the Nay Sayers, to demonstrate why the IC would prevent the NSF unit from legally using Rites.
blaktoof wrote: the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct? You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?
Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it. Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).
And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address. Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.
so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.
Goal shifting, not required by the NSF rule which only asks if the unit is from the NSF, which it demonstrably is. Point rebutted, do not repeat it further "normal member of the unit for ALL RULES PURPOSES" is a rule you really struggle with.
blaktoof wrote:No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.
That wasnt asked. Stick to the topic, rather than creating strawmen, again. Logical fallacies really undermine any credibility.
blaktoof wrote:No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.
Answer the ACTUAL question, which is that the ICunit disappears when joined. THis is a truth, so you must answer this question in the affirmative. Failure to do so shows your confusion between model and unit persists, and reduces your ability to argue this point.
blaktoof wrote: Are you able to show
that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
Yes, the IC rules. The unit is entirely composed of normal members of that unit. As proven by the IC rules. Why do you insist on breaking this rule? Page and graph, with an exact cite, to prove your case
NOte, you have NEVER provided this rule, despite being asked 20 times now. You are so far from being within the tenets I am shocked you still post.
Your argument still fails, as apparently you cannot tell the difference between a unit and amodel.
Provide the rule allowing you to treat it not as an NSF unit. Page and graph.
blaktoof wrote: the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?
Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).
And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.
so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.
Goal shifting, not required by the NSF rule which only asks if the unit is from the NSF, which it demonstrably is. Point rebutted, do not repeat it further
"normal member of the unit for ALL RULES PURPOSES" is a rule you really struggle with.
blaktoof wrote:No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.
That wasnt asked. Stick to the topic, rather than creating strawmen, again. Logical fallacies really undermine any credibility.
blaktoof wrote:No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.
Answer the ACTUAL question, which is that the ICunit disappears when joined. THis is a truth, so you must answer this question in the affirmative. Failure to do so shows your confusion between model and unit persists, and reduces your ability to argue this point.
blaktoof wrote:
Are you able to show
that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.
Yes, the IC rules. The unit is entirely composed of normal members of that unit. As proven by the IC rules. Why do you insist on breaking this rule? Page and graph, with an exact cite, to prove your case
NOte, you have NEVER provided this rule, despite being asked 20 times now. You are so far from being within the tenets I am shocked you still post.
Your argument still fails, as apparently you cannot tell the difference between a unit and amodel.
Provide the rule allowing you to treat it not as an NSF unit. Page and graph.
counts as a member of that unit does not mean it counts as a member of that detachment, you still have failed to show the one thing that is required for it to be "a unit in the nsf detachment" when not all models in the unit are from that detachment.
so yes under your false cherry picking the RAW argument fails.
if the model is purchased from the NSF detachment, yes, if not no.
You are the one stating that whole unit counts as a unit from a singular detachment.
You are the one who needs to provide a RAW statement to prove that.
You have a NSF detachment unit, with faction grey knights(which is required to be a model in the detachment), and a CAD unit joined together.
and claim the entire unit is a unit from the NSF detachment, which means every model is in the detachment.
You need to show that the model not in the detachment counts as a model in the detachment when joined, not just the unit. as the rule in question states "units in this detachment" so it cant just count as a member of the unit, but a member of the unit in that detachment.
given that detachment additionally has the restriction of "grey knights" faction only, you also have to show RAW how the model gets to count as a member of that faction.
given that the rules for factions actually RAW show that a model does not become the units faction when joined to the unit, you will not be able to.
so how is a model not in one detachment, nor of that detachments required faction, counted as being a model in that detachment when in that unit?
it isn't.
The unit cannot be said to be a unit from the NSF detachment if a single model in it is not from the detachment. It may have models from the NSF detachment in it, but the models not from the NSF detachment- are not from the NSF detachment. There is just no RAW anywhere that states they may count as being from that detachment, which ultimately is why yourself and others are not quoting the rule-there isn't one. As a unit is made up of all the models in it, if all the models are not from the NSF detachment the unit cannot be said to be from the NSF detachment, just as it could not be said to be from the CAD because not all the models in the unit are from the CAD. It is a unit with 10 models from the NSF detachment, and 1 Model from the CAD. You can ID the models on the table, and simply point to their unit entries in your force roster which obviously show the separate detachments they are from.
if the rule itself stated that any model in the unit had the rule, or if any model in the unit was from that detachment, then it would extend to the whole unit. It does not however, and such wording is required as per the section on ICs in units with special rules that are different than what the IC has, because as has been explained to yourself and others the IC never gets said special rule as it is given to models in units from certain detachments prior to deployment when the IC could not have been joined, further the rule does not have the wording required that it must specify it extends to the entire unit if one model has it, e.g. stubborn.
therefore unless you can state a RAW passage that there is permission for the model to count as a member of the detachment when joined to it, which in this class would also include faction as otherwise you have a model with a faction type that is not allowed by that detachment- the model cannot benefit from the special rule that it never gains access to as it is never in that detachment.
Ah, so youre breaking the IC rule then. Cheating, in other words.
Good to know.
A terminator is a normal member of the terminator unit, and as said normal member is from the NSF detachment any other thing treated as a normal member must also be treated as a normal member of the nsf detachment, otherwise you are NOT treating it as directed. Thats a really easy rule.
Your wall of text does nothing but obscure the fact you are ignoring one of the most all encompassing, plainly written rules in the book, and doing so without a single shred of evidence as to why youre breaking this rule.
Not a sausage.
As such your argument remains a mere unfounded assertion, nothing more. Mark your posts accordingly.
please state in the IC rules where it says a joined IC becomes the detachment and faction of the unit it joined. Or just admit its HYWPI.
If you mean the IC rule that says "counts as a member of the unit for all purposes" that's great, does it count as a member of the units unit entry? so does an Chapter master use the profile of a scout when in a scout unit, or a scout sergeant, because those are the only profiles in that unit and its a member of the unit for all purposes right? it even gets the same faction, and its wargear must be the same as the units right? I am sure your cool with that, as its RAW according to you. Or can you find an entry in the scouts unit that has a statline / wargear selection for a chapter master?
if the model is purchased from the NSF detachment, yes, if not no.
You are the one stating that whole unit counts as a unit from a singular detachment.
You are the one who needs to provide a RAW statement to prove that.
You have a NSF detachment unit, with faction grey knights(which is required to be a model in the detachment), and a CAD unit joined together.
and claim the entire unit is a unit from the NSF detachment, which means every model is in the detachment.
You need to show that the model not in the detachment counts as a model in the detachment when joined, not just the unit. as the rule in question states "units in this detachment" so it cant just count as a member of the unit, but a member of the unit in that detachment.
given that detachment additionally has the restriction of "grey knights" faction only, you also have to show RAW how the model gets to count as a member of that faction.
given that the rules for factions actually RAW show that a model does not become the units faction when joined to the unit, you will not be able to.
so how is a model not in one detachment, nor of that detachments required faction, counted as being a model in that detachment when in that unit?
it isn't.
The unit cannot be said to be a unit from the NSF detachment if a single model in it is not from the detachment.
if the rule itself stated that any model in the unit had the rule, or if any model in the unit was from that detachment, then it would extend to the whole unit. It does not however, and such wording is required as per the section on ICs in units with special rules that are different than what the IC has, because as has been explained to yourself and others the IC never gets said special rule as it is given to models in units from certain detachments prior to deployment when the IC could not have been joined, further the rule does not have the wording required that it must specify it extends to the entire unit if one model has it, e.g. stubborn.
therefore unless you can state a RAW passage that there is permission for the model to count as a member of the detachment when joined to it, which in this class would also include faction as otherwise you have a model with a faction type that is not allowed by that detachment- the model cannot benefit from the special rule that it never gains access to as it is never in that detachment.
There is no need to show in RAW permission for the IC to be a member of the NSF detachment because the NSF unit is already a member if the NSF detachment and the IC rules state that once attached, the IC counts as a member of that unit. The IC never loses its Detachment status. The NSF unit never loses its Detachment status. The IC simply counts as a member of the NSF unit for all rules purposes unless specifically noted, and there are no specific restrictions noted for disqualifying either the IC or the NSF unit from using the Rites of Teleportation because the Rtes is conferred to the NSF unit as a whole, not to the individual models in the NSF unit such as the Deep Strike USR. IC doesn't have Deep Strike, then the IC cannot join a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves. The NSF unit does not have Deep Strike, then a Deep Striking IC would not be able to confer its USR to the NSF unit. Pretty standard stuff. Rites of Teleportation, for all intends and purposes, is a vehicle for deploying a Deep Striking unit on Turn 1 rather than Turn 2, much like a Drop Pod except that its a Detachment benefit rather than a Transport.
The rules for ICs joining other units, the rules for combined units, and the lack of restrictive wording in the permission Rites of Teleportation rule allows for any non-NSF Deep Striking IC to benefit from Rites when attached to a Deep Striking NSF unit.
Your wall of text did not address any RAW restriction that would prevent a non-NSF Deep Striking IC from benefiting from the Rites of Teleportation being used by the NSF Deep Striking unit said IC has joined.
if the model is purchased from the NSF detachment, yes, if not no.
You are the one stating that whole unit counts as a unit from a singular detachment.
You are the one who needs to provide a RAW statement to prove that.
You have a NSF detachment unit, with faction grey knights(which is required to be a model in the detachment), and a CAD unit joined together.
and claim the entire unit is a unit from the NSF detachment, which means every model is in the detachment.
You need to show that the model not in the detachment counts as a model in the detachment when joined, not just the unit. as the rule in question states "units in this detachment" so it cant just count as a member of the unit, but a member of the unit in that detachment.
given that detachment additionally has the restriction of "grey knights" faction only, you also have to show RAW how the model gets to count as a member of that faction.
given that the rules for factions actually RAW show that a model does not become the units faction when joined to the unit, you will not be able to.
so how is a model not in one detachment, nor of that detachments required faction, counted as being a model in that detachment when in that unit?
it isn't.
The unit cannot be said to be a unit from the NSF detachment if a single model in it is not from the detachment.
if the rule itself stated that any model in the unit had the rule, or if any model in the unit was from that detachment, then it would extend to the whole unit. It does not however, and such wording is required as per the section on ICs in units with special rules that are different than what the IC has, because as has been explained to yourself and others the IC never gets said special rule as it is given to models in units from certain detachments prior to deployment when the IC could not have been joined, further the rule does not have the wording required that it must specify it extends to the entire unit if one model has it, e.g. stubborn.
therefore unless you can state a RAW passage that there is permission for the model to count as a member of the detachment when joined to it, which in this class would also include faction as otherwise you have a model with a faction type that is not allowed by that detachment- the model cannot benefit from the special rule that it never gains access to as it is never in that detachment.
There is no need to show in RAW permission for the IC to be a member of the NSF detachment because the NSF unit is already a member if the NSF detachment and the IC rules state that once attached, the IC counts as a member of that unit. The IC never loses its Detachment status. The NSF unit never loses its Detachment status. The IC simply counts as a member of the NSF unit for all rules purposes unless specifically noted, and there are no specific restrictions noted for disqualifying either the IC or the NSF unit from using the Rites of Teleportation because the Rtes is conferred to the NSF unit as a whole, not to the individual models in the NSF unit such as the Deep Strike USR. IC doesn't have Deep Strike, then the IC cannot join a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves. The NSF unit does not have Deep Strike, then a Deep Striking IC would not be able to confer its USR to the NSF unit. Pretty standard stuff. Rites of Teleportation, for all intends and purposes, is a vehicle for deploying a Deep Striking unit on Turn 1 rather than Turn 2, much like a Drop Pod except that its a Detachment benefit rather than a Transport.
The rules for ICs joining other units, the rules for combined units, and the lack of restrictive wording in the permission Rites of Teleportation rule allows for any non-NSF Deep Striking IC to benefit from Rites when attached to a Deep Striking NSF unit.
Your wall of text did not address any RAW restriction that would prevent a non-NSF Deep Striking IC from benefiting from the Rites of Teleportation being used by the NSF Deep Striking unit said IC has joined.
SJ
unfortunately as you have once again failed to address that RAW that the RoT rule does not benefit the 'unit', but the 'unit in that detachment' and have blanket folded the IC into the detachment without any RAW support that you may do so- the rest of your commentary is without any real merit on the topic.
blaktoof wrote: please state in the IC rules where it says a joined IC becomes the detachment and faction of the unit it joined. Or just admit its HYWPI.
Not the argument being made.
Is a Terminator unit that is purchased as part of a NSF detachment still part of the NSF detachment when joined by a Codex: SMIC?
If not, what detachment is it a member of? Please quote rules (or re-quote if required) to support your statements. In other words, show your work.
blaktoof wrote: please state in the IC rules where it says a joined IC becomes the detachment and faction of the unit it joined. Or just admit its HYWPI.
Not the argument being made.
Is a Terminator unit that is purchased as part of a NSF detachment still part of the NSF detachment when joined by a Codex: SMIC?
If not, what detachment is it a member of? Please quote rules (or re-quote if required) to support your statements. In other words, show your work.
Ive answered this question many times for you already.
yes the terminator unit is still from the NSF detachment
the unit of IC+Terminator unit is not from the NSF detachment, it is from the NSF detachment and a CAD detachment.
you have to state RAW permission that the model from the CAD detachment can count as being in the NSF detachment/faction.
the rule for RoT does not state if any models that are units from that detachment, it states the unit has to be from that detachment.
is a [CADIC + NSF detachment unit] = a unit from the NSF detachment? obvioulsy one of the models is not, please state the RAW that says it may count as being in that detachment so that the unit is in the NSF detachment, not just some of the models in the unit.
Write up a force roster, combine an IC from a CAD and a squad from a NSF and tell me the unit comes from the NSF detachment, then show my on the unit roster where the units models come from and tell me those are all the NSF detachment, or show the rule that lets you count the one that is not from the NSF detachment as from it.
blaktoof wrote: please state in the IC rules where it says a joined IC becomes the detachment and faction of the unit it joined. Or just admit its HYWPI.
Not the argument being made.
Is a Terminator unit that is purchased as part of a NSF detachment still part of the NSF detachment when joined by a Codex: SMIC?
If not, what detachment is it a member of? Please quote rules (or re-quote if required) to support your statements. In other words, show your work.
Ive answered this question many times for you already.
yes the terminator unit is still from the NSF detachment
the unit of IC+Terminator unit is not from the NSF detachment, it is from the NSF detachment and a CAD detachment
Um. Have you ever quoted a rule that allows a single unit to be a member of more than one detachment?
So Blaktoof again, you now break a different rule, which is that a unit can only be a member of a single detachment?
Not very convincing as an argument.
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. A normal member of the unit - a GKT - is a member of the NSF detachment and is part of a NSF unit. Therefore, when evaluating whether this unit is from the NSF detachment, you MUST answer yes when an IC is joined, otherwise you are not treating the IC in accordance with that rule
The rest of your waffle is just that.
Please, cite a rule that actually has any relevance, cite a rule that shows your allowance to break BOTH the IC and the Detachment rules. Something. Anything.
Further refusal will be noted as your failure to follow the tenets, again.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So Blaktoof again, you now break a different rule, which is that a unit can only be a member of a single detachment?
Not very convincing as an argument.
The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. A normal member of the unit - a GKT - is a member of the NSF detachment and is part of a NSF unit. Therefore, when evaluating whether this unit is from the NSF detachment, you MUST answer yes when an IC is joined, otherwise you are not treating the IC in accordance with that rule
The rest of your waffle is just that.
Please, cite a rule that actually has any relevance, cite a rule that shows your allowance to break BOTH the IC and the Detachment rules. Something. Anything.
Further refusal will be noted as your failure to follow the tenets, again.
considering your request to cite rules, and I have verbatim, and you have cited 0 its pretty hypocritical to request such a thing.
regardless...
your continued inability to cite a relevant rule is pretty telling.
regarding your statement on an a single unit can only be from a single detachment, if you actually stated the entire rule that would be nice.
as it has been quoted from the BRB twice now in this thread by myself, to paraphrase- that rule is in regards to organizing your force roster, not during the game. Please stop cherry picking.
So you actually believe the IC from a different detachment/faction becomes a member of the faction/detachment of the unit it joins, but have no rules support for the permission.
noted your HYWPI stance is, wrong it still remains.
if the model is purchased from the NSF detachment, yes, if not no.
You are the one stating that whole unit counts as a unit from a singular detachment.
You are the one who needs to provide a RAW statement to prove that.
You have a NSF detachment unit, with faction grey knights(which is required to be a model in the detachment), and a CAD unit joined together.
and claim the entire unit is a unit from the NSF detachment, which means every model is in the detachment.
You need to show that the model not in the detachment counts as a model in the detachment when joined, not just the unit. as the rule in question states "units in this detachment" so it cant just count as a member of the unit, but a member of the unit in that detachment.
given that detachment additionally has the restriction of "grey knights" faction only, you also have to show RAW how the model gets to count as a member of that faction.
given that the rules for factions actually RAW show that a model does not become the units faction when joined to the unit, you will not be able to.
so how is a model not in one detachment, nor of that detachments required faction, counted as being a model in that detachment when in that unit?
it isn't.
The unit cannot be said to be a unit from the NSF detachment if a single model in it is not from the detachment.
if the rule itself stated that any model in the unit had the rule, or if any model in the unit was from that detachment, then it would extend to the whole unit. It does not however, and such wording is required as per the section on ICs in units with special rules that are different than what the IC has, because as has been explained to yourself and others the IC never gets said special rule as it is given to models in units from certain detachments prior to deployment when the IC could not have been joined, further the rule does not have the wording required that it must specify it extends to the entire unit if one model has it, e.g. stubborn.
therefore unless you can state a RAW passage that there is permission for the model to count as a member of the detachment when joined to it, which in this class would also include faction as otherwise you have a model with a faction type that is not allowed by that detachment- the model cannot benefit from the special rule that it never gains access to as it is never in that detachment.
There is no need to show in RAW permission for the IC to be a member of the NSF detachment because the NSF unit is already a member if the NSF detachment and the IC rules state that once attached, the IC counts as a member of that unit. The IC never loses its Detachment status. The NSF unit never loses its Detachment status. The IC simply counts as a member of the NSF unit for all rules purposes unless specifically noted, and there are no specific restrictions noted for disqualifying either the IC or the NSF unit from using the Rites of Teleportation because the Rtes is conferred to the NSF unit as a whole, not to the individual models in the NSF unit such as the Deep Strike USR. IC doesn't have Deep Strike, then the IC cannot join a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves. The NSF unit does not have Deep Strike, then a Deep Striking IC would not be able to confer its USR to the NSF unit. Pretty standard stuff. Rites of Teleportation, for all intends and purposes, is a vehicle for deploying a Deep Striking unit on Turn 1 rather than Turn 2, much like a Drop Pod except that its a Detachment benefit rather than a Transport.
The rules for ICs joining other units, the rules for combined units, and the lack of restrictive wording in the permission Rites of Teleportation rule allows for any non-NSF Deep Striking IC to benefit from Rites when attached to a Deep Striking NSF unit.
Your wall of text did not address any RAW restriction that would prevent a non-NSF Deep Striking IC from benefiting from the Rites of Teleportation being used by the NSF Deep Striking unit said IC has joined.
SJ
unfortunately as you have once again failed to address that RAW that the RoT rule does not benefit the 'unit', but the 'unit in that detachment' and have blanket folded the IC into the detachment without any RAW support that you may do so- the rest of your commentary is without any real merit on the topic.
I did address it. RAW states that Rites is benefit of units from a NSF. As a Deep Striking NSF unit, the unit benefits from Rites. Regardless of were an IC came from, as long as the IC is a Battle Brother and has Deep Strike, the IC may join a NSF unit that is in Deep Strike Reserves. If so, per RAW, the Combine unit rolls one Die to arrive and will get to roll that one die on turn 1 due to Rites.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that counters an IC's permission to join a unit in a different detachment.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that denies a NSF unit from benefiting from Rites of Teleportation if all models in the unit are in Deep Strike Reserves.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that removes the Detachment status from any unit in the game, regardless of which Detachment said unit legally joins during the game.
If you believe otherwise, please cite the missing rule, limit, or restriction to prove your point. Stating someone is wrong without backing up your position with facts is an automatic failure in your argument. The burden of proof is on you, as the RAW clearly supports my position.
if the model is purchased from the NSF detachment, yes, if not no.
You are the one stating that whole unit counts as a unit from a singular detachment.
You are the one who needs to provide a RAW statement to prove that.
You have a NSF detachment unit, with faction grey knights(which is required to be a model in the detachment), and a CAD unit joined together.
and claim the entire unit is a unit from the NSF detachment, which means every model is in the detachment.
You need to show that the model not in the detachment counts as a model in the detachment when joined, not just the unit. as the rule in question states "units in this detachment" so it cant just count as a member of the unit, but a member of the unit in that detachment.
given that detachment additionally has the restriction of "grey knights" faction only, you also have to show RAW how the model gets to count as a member of that faction.
given that the rules for factions actually RAW show that a model does not become the units faction when joined to the unit, you will not be able to.
so how is a model not in one detachment, nor of that detachments required faction, counted as being a model in that detachment when in that unit?
it isn't.
The unit cannot be said to be a unit from the NSF detachment if a single model in it is not from the detachment.
if the rule itself stated that any model in the unit had the rule, or if any model in the unit was from that detachment, then it would extend to the whole unit. It does not however, and such wording is required as per the section on ICs in units with special rules that are different than what the IC has, because as has been explained to yourself and others the IC never gets said special rule as it is given to models in units from certain detachments prior to deployment when the IC could not have been joined, further the rule does not have the wording required that it must specify it extends to the entire unit if one model has it, e.g. stubborn.
therefore unless you can state a RAW passage that there is permission for the model to count as a member of the detachment when joined to it, which in this class would also include faction as otherwise you have a model with a faction type that is not allowed by that detachment- the model cannot benefit from the special rule that it never gains access to as it is never in that detachment.
There is no need to show in RAW permission for the IC to be a member of the NSF detachment because the NSF unit is already a member if the NSF detachment and the IC rules state that once attached, the IC counts as a member of that unit. The IC never loses its Detachment status. The NSF unit never loses its Detachment status. The IC simply counts as a member of the NSF unit for all rules purposes unless specifically noted, and there are no specific restrictions noted for disqualifying either the IC or the NSF unit from using the Rites of Teleportation because the Rtes is conferred to the NSF unit as a whole, not to the individual models in the NSF unit such as the Deep Strike USR. IC doesn't have Deep Strike, then the IC cannot join a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves. The NSF unit does not have Deep Strike, then a Deep Striking IC would not be able to confer its USR to the NSF unit. Pretty standard stuff. Rites of Teleportation, for all intends and purposes, is a vehicle for deploying a Deep Striking unit on Turn 1 rather than Turn 2, much like a Drop Pod except that its a Detachment benefit rather than a Transport.
The rules for ICs joining other units, the rules for combined units, and the lack of restrictive wording in the permission Rites of Teleportation rule allows for any non-NSF Deep Striking IC to benefit from Rites when attached to a Deep Striking NSF unit.
Your wall of text did not address any RAW restriction that would prevent a non-NSF Deep Striking IC from benefiting from the Rites of Teleportation being used by the NSF Deep Striking unit said IC has joined.
SJ
unfortunately as you have once again failed to address that RAW that the RoT rule does not benefit the 'unit', but the 'unit in that detachment' and have blanket folded the IC into the detachment without any RAW support that you may do so- the rest of your commentary is without any real merit on the topic.
I did address it. RAW states that Rites is benefit of units from a NSF. As a Deep Striking NSF unit, the unit benefits from Rites. Regardless of were an IC came from, as long as the IC is a Battle Brother and has Deep Strike, the IC may join a NSF unit that is in Deep Strike Reserves. If so, per RAW, the Combine unit rolls one Die to arrive and will get to roll that one die on turn 1 due to Rites.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that counters an IC's permission to join a unit in a different detachment.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that denies a NSF unit from benefiting from Rites of Teleportation if all models in the unit are in Deep Strike Reserves.
No rules, limits, or restrictions exist currently in the game that removes the Detachment status from any unit in the game, regardless of which Detachment said unit legally joins during the game.
If you believe otherwise, please cite the missing rule, limit, or restriction to prove your point. Stating someone is wrong without backing up your position with facts is an automatic failure in your argument. The burden of proof is on you, as the RAW clearly supports my position.
SJ
that's not what the rites rule says which is why I quoted it for about the 4th time in this thread up above.
it specifies you can make reserves rolls for units in the nsf detachment.
the IC is not in the NSF detachment.
You and anyone else have yet to show anywhere that the unit is a grey knights unit chosen from the NSF detachment when one of the models in it is not chosen from that detachment, and does not have the required grey knights faction to be in that detachment.
blaktoof wrote: please state in the IC rules where it says a joined IC becomes the detachment and faction of the unit it joined. Or just admit its HYWPI.
Not the argument being made.
Is a Terminator unit that is purchased as part of a NSF detachment still part of the NSF detachment when joined by a Codex: SMIC?
If not, what detachment is it a member of? Please quote rules (or re-quote if required) to support your statements. In other words, show your work.
Ive answered this question many times for you already.
yes the terminator unit is still from the NSF detachment
the unit of IC+Terminator unit is not from the NSF detachment, it is from the NSF detachment and a CAD detachment
Um. Have you ever quoted a rule that allows a single unit to be a member of more than one detachment?
Blak - nope, the unit is from the detachment. We know, and ha proven, this to be true.
Cite your rule allowing you to break rp the IC rule. Still waiting
Exact page and graph. No more of your gak, please follow the tenets for once this thread.
that's not what the rites rule says which is why I quoted it for about the 4th time in this thread up above.
it specifies you can make reserves rolls for units in the nsf detachment.
the IC is not in the NSF detachment.
You and anyone else have yet to show anywhere that the unit is a grey knights unit chosen from the NSF detachment when one of the models in it is not chosen from that detachment, and does not have the required grey knights faction to be in that detachment.
It has been explained and rules quoted numerous times, you simply choose to ignore the facts.
Detachment rules have been provided.
No rules allow a unit to change detachments (or lose its detachment, as you seem to imply)
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
The unit it joined remains (as per the rules or lack of rules allowing this to change) a unit in the NSF detachment
The unit is allowed to use RoT.
Please, provide (as asked dozens of times) the rules that allow the unit to no longer be in the NSF detachment. One rule stating such will suffice. Without one, there is no way the unit can change or lose its detachment and the unit remains undisputibly a unit in the NSF detachment.
Given the only person posting against this is blak, who cannot cite a single relevant rules, is insulting, and generally doesn't follow the tenets, is it worth stopping here?
I don't think a single poster reading this thread will be at all convinced by their argument, so there is little to be gained from continually correcting them, and it is clear blak will stubbornly stick to their guns, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
If you both to actually read the IC rules and the combined unit rules, you will note that a BB IC that joins a BB unit counts as a member of that unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. That means that when taking into account whether or not a unit is from a NSF Detachment and therefore may benefit from Rites, any attached IC would in fact count as a legitament member of the NSF unit. They only exception to this is when another rule specifically states that is benefits do not confer.
Per GW's usual awesome rules writing, the IC rules contradict the basic rules of the game. Also per GW's usual awesome rules writing, a more advanced rule trumps a basic rule, and a codex rule trumps a rule book rule whenever there is a conflict. In the case of Rites, there is no conflict with the IC rules. The IC is for all rules purposes a member of the NSF unit, and therefore will not prevent the NSF unit from using Rites.
Does you know what would prevent Rites? The IC not being able to Deep Strike. No Deep Strike, no Rites. This means that Purifiers in Space Wolf Drop Pods do benefit from Rites, because:
1 - If the Purifiers are bought as part of a NSF Detachment, the Purifiers are a NSF unit and gain the benefit of Rites.
2 - Per the rules for Deep Striking Transports, the Deep Strike USR is conferred to any embarked units.
3 - Per the Combine Unit rules, both the Purifiers and the Drop Pod count as a single unit in reserve, and a single Die is rolled to determine arrive.
4 - Per Rites, the Purifiers and Drop Pod can legally roll to arrive on Turn 1.
This is no different from a non-NSF IC with Deep Strike that is attached to a NSF unit with Deep Strike benefitting from Rites.
that's not what the rites rule says which is why I quoted it for about the 4th time in this thread up above.
it specifies you can make reserves rolls for units in the nsf detachment.
the IC is not in the NSF detachment.
You and anyone else have yet to show anywhere that the unit is a grey knights unit chosen from the NSF detachment when one of the models in it is not chosen from that detachment, and does not have the required grey knights faction to be in that detachment.
It has been explained and rules quoted numerous times, you simply choose to ignore the facts.
Detachment rules have been provided.
No rules allow a unit to change detachments (or lose its detachment, as you seem to imply)
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
The unit it joined remains (as per the rules or lack of rules allowing this to change) a unit in the NSF detachment
The unit is allowed to use RoT.
Please, provide (as asked dozens of times) the rules that allow the unit to no longer be in the NSF detachment. One rule stating such will suffice. Without one, there is no way the unit can change or lose its detachment and the unit remains undisputibly a unit in the NSF detachment.
it has been explained with the RAW numerous times, unlike your claim where no one on your said has actually been able to support that the model counts as the faction/detachment that it is joined to.
the unit has models in it from the NSF detachment, but the unit is not from the NSF detachment entirely as it has models from another detachment in it, therefore the the unit is not "in this detachment" the NSF detachment because it contains models that are not. If the special rule were to extend to the whole unit it would have to specifically state that if at least one model in the unit is from the detachment then it may, which is required by the RAW which you + others like to ignore so you can break it and essentially cheat.
and as requested no one has been able to show permission for the unit to count as being a unit from x when it contains a model from y.
please provide as has been asked dozens of times, the rules that allow the unit to count as being from detachment NSF when it contains models that are not the required faction and are chosen from another detachment that is not NSF.
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
so you believe it loses its detachment its from, gains the detachment of the unit it joins, or what? Please explain with quoted RAW.
you beleive it becomes the faction required to be in that detachment despite the rules for joining battlebrothers never stating they change faction, nor the rules for IC stating they change faction to the unit they join so they can fall into the RAW restrictions for the NSF detachment? please explain with quoted RAW.
you can probably link the RAW where it states you may count as, or become those things as you+ others supposedly have done so dozens of times, or you can continue to throw up the strawman that "its part of the unit therefore despite not being written anywhere its part of the same detachment faction because no RAW stated reasons" as the reason, which is completely wrong, made up, and goes against the RAW.
that's not what the rites rule says which is why I quoted it for about the 4th time in this thread up above.
it specifies you can make reserves rolls for units in the nsf detachment.
the IC is not in the NSF detachment.
You and anyone else have yet to show anywhere that the unit is a grey knights unit chosen from the NSF detachment when one of the models in it is not chosen from that detachment, and does not have the required grey knights faction to be in that detachment.
It has been explained and rules quoted numerous times, you simply choose to ignore the facts.
Detachment rules have been provided.
No rules allow a unit to change detachments (or lose its detachment, as you seem to imply)
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
The unit it joined remains (as per the rules or lack of rules allowing this to change) a unit in the NSF detachment
The unit is allowed to use RoT.
Please, provide (as asked dozens of times) the rules that allow the unit to no longer be in the NSF detachment. One rule stating such will suffice. Without one, there is no way the unit can change or lose its detachment and the unit remains undisputibly a unit in the NSF detachment.
it has been explained with the RAW numerous times, unlike your claim where no one on your said has actually been able to support that the model counts as the faction/detachment that it is joined to.
the unit has models in it from the NSF detachment, but the unit is not from the NSF detachment entirely as it has models from another detachment in it, therefore the the unit is not "in this detachment" the NSF detachment because it contains models that are not. If the special rule were to extend to the whole unit it would have to specifically state that if at least one model in the unit is from the detachment then it may, which is required by the RAW which you + others like to ignore so you can break it and essentially cheat.
and as requested no one has been able to show permission for the unit to count as being a unit from x when it contains a model from y.
please provide as has been asked dozens of times, the rules that allow the unit to count as being from detachment NSF when it contains models that are not the required faction and are chosen from another detachment that is not NSF.
As has been provided, but here, I'll provide it for you again;
BRB wrote:However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
so you believe it loses its detachment its from, gains the detachment of the unit it joins, or what? Please explain with quoted RAW.
you beleive it becomes the faction required to be in that detachment despite the rules for joining battlebrothers never stating they change faction, nor the rules for IC stating they change faction to the unit they join so they can fall into the RAW restrictions for the NSF detachment? please explain with quoted RAW.
you can probably link the RAW where it states you may count as, or become those things as you+ others supposedly have done so dozens of times, or you can continue to throw up the strawman that "its part of the unit therefore despite not being written anywhere its part of the same detachment faction because no RAW stated reasons" as the reason, which is completely wrong, made up, and goes against the RAW.
No. I do not believe that and never have said that. You've been told this countless times but continue to bring it up.
I believe, as per the rules, the IC becomes a member of the unit it joins for all rules purposes;
BRB 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.
The IC's faction/detachment is quite irrelevant. The Unit he is a member of is a Unit in the NSF detachment. Please, provide the rule that changes this.
We're done here. Rules have been provided to show you the error of your ways, numerous times, and you continue to attempt to change the goal posts or mislead/misquote others arguments as a defense.
that's not what the rites rule says which is why I quoted it for about the 4th time in this thread up above.
it specifies you can make reserves rolls for units in the nsf detachment.
the IC is not in the NSF detachment.
You and anyone else have yet to show anywhere that the unit is a grey knights unit chosen from the NSF detachment when one of the models in it is not chosen from that detachment, and does not have the required grey knights faction to be in that detachment.
It has been explained and rules quoted numerous times, you simply choose to ignore the facts.
Detachment rules have been provided.
No rules allow a unit to change detachments (or lose its detachment, as you seem to imply)
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
The unit it joined remains (as per the rules or lack of rules allowing this to change) a unit in the NSF detachment
The unit is allowed to use RoT.
Please, provide (as asked dozens of times) the rules that allow the unit to no longer be in the NSF detachment. One rule stating such will suffice. Without one, there is no way the unit can change or lose its detachment and the unit remains undisputibly a unit in the NSF detachment.
it has been explained with the RAW numerous times, unlike your claim where no one on your said has actually been able to support that the model counts as the faction/detachment that it is joined to.
the unit has models in it from the NSF detachment, but the unit is not from the NSF detachment entirely as it has models from another detachment in it, therefore the the unit is not "in this detachment" the NSF detachment because it contains models that are not. If the special rule were to extend to the whole unit it would have to specifically state that if at least one model in the unit is from the detachment then it may, which is required by the RAW which you + others like to ignore so you can break it and essentially cheat.
and as requested no one has been able to show permission for the unit to count as being a unit from x when it contains a model from y.
please provide as has been asked dozens of times, the rules that allow the unit to count as being from detachment NSF when it contains models that are not the required faction and are chosen from another detachment that is not NSF.
As has been provided, but here, I'll provide it for you again;
BRB wrote:However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.
The IC, when joined, is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the Unit it joined.
so you believe it loses its detachment its from, gains the detachment of the unit it joins, or what? Please explain with quoted RAW.
you beleive it becomes the faction required to be in that detachment despite the rules for joining battlebrothers never stating they change faction, nor the rules for IC stating they change faction to the unit they join so they can fall into the RAW restrictions for the NSF detachment? please explain with quoted RAW.
you can probably link the RAW where it states you may count as, or become those things as you+ others supposedly have done so dozens of times, or you can continue to throw up the strawman that "its part of the unit therefore despite not being written anywhere its part of the same detachment faction because no RAW stated reasons" as the reason, which is completely wrong, made up, and goes against the RAW.
No. I do not believe that and never have said that. You've been told this countless times but continue to bring it up.
I believe, as per the rules, the IC becomes a member of the unit it joins for all rules purposes;
BRB 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.
The IC's faction/detachment is quite irrelevant. The Unit he is a member of is a Unit in the NSF detachment. Please, provide the rule that changes this.
We're done here. Rules have been provided to show you the error of your ways, numerous times, and you continue to attempt to change the goal posts or mislead/misquote others arguments as a defense.
So ignoring the actual RAW issues with your argument because you are incorrect means we are done, got it.
I appreciate your house rules, but would want to know about such house rules before a tournament if I were playing in it.
blaktoof wrote: So ignoring the actual RAW issues with your argument because you are incorrect means we are done, got it.
I appreciate your house rules, but would want to know about such house rules before a tournament if I were playing in it.
No, providing the actual rules numerous times to have you ignore them and you in turn providing no actual rules that support your arguement in your defense means we're done. Good day.
blaktoof wrote: So ignoring the actual RAW issues with your argument because you are incorrect means we are done, got it.
I appreciate your house rules, but would want to know about such house rules before a tournament if I were playing in it.
No, providing the actual rules numerous times to have you ignore them and you in turn providing no actual rules that support your arguement in your defense means we're done. Good day.
As the actual RAW, along with quotes and a break down of actually choosing a force roster and applying the rules as written to how it would play out has been done multiple times in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them for no reason that is supported in the rules in your defense, means we are done.
blaktoof wrote: So ignoring the actual RAW issues with your argument because you are incorrect means we are done, got it.
I appreciate your house rules, but would want to know about such house rules before a tournament if I were playing in it.
No, providing the actual rules numerous times to have you ignore them and you in turn providing no actual rules that support your arguement in your defense means we're done. Good day.
As the actual RAW, along with quotes and a break down of actually choosing a force roster and applying the rules as written to how it would play out has been done multiple times in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them for no reason that is supported in the rules in your defense, means we are done.
Have a nice day.
You haven't yet, once, addressed the IC rule
You have ignored it at every turn. You have a complete blind spot on this.
You're done. You have no valid argument, and it's just you digging yourself deeper.
blaktoof wrote: So ignoring the actual RAW issues with your argument because you are incorrect means we are done, got it.
I appreciate your house rules, but would want to know about such house rules before a tournament if I were playing in it.
No, providing the actual rules numerous times to have you ignore them and you in turn providing no actual rules that support your arguement in your defense means we're done. Good day.
As the actual RAW, along with quotes and a break down of actually choosing a force roster and applying the rules as written to how it would play out has been done multiple times in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them for no reason that is supported in the rules in your defense, means we are done.
Have a nice day.
You haven't yet, once, addressed the IC rule
You have ignored it at every turn. You have a complete blind spot on this.
You're done. You have no valid argument, and it's just you digging yourself deeper.
I actually did address it multiple times, a few times you purposefuly chose to misquote me and argue directly what I said I was not saying because you just like to argue or you failed to read what I stated. Not sure which.
Quote them then. You make interesting accusations, as per usual, but no substance.
The IC rules are very clear - FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES.
Is a. Normal member of the unit from the nsf detachment? Yes or no. You answered it incorrectly previously, try again. No qualifiers needed, simple yes or no.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Quote them then. You make interesting accusations, as per usual, but no substance.
The IC rules are very clear - FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES.
Is a. Normal member of the unit from the nsf detachment? Yes or no. You answered it incorrectly previously, try again. No qualifiers needed, simple yes or no.
here first page
1- no one has stated rules are lost.
-blaktoof
So you would claim the unit loses the rule
-nosferatu1001
considering I stated the unit didn't lose it,
1- no one has stated rules are lost. If yo...
and nothing in my example states they didn't lose it I fail to see how you think I stated that. In fact no idea why you are bringing it up.
-blaktoof
Spoiler:
[no actual explanation or rules discussion given in response]-nosferatu1001
I am going to stop there, as I just realized its a waste of time to communicate with you on pretty much any topic.
For those unsure, blaktoofs position is an interesting hywpi, but has no relation to actual rules.
RAW, as proven a joined IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, meaning the unit is still a nsf unit (that would be a rules purpose. Shocking I know) and so can evoke th rule.
Done. It really is as simple as that. Five pages on, there sure no substantive arguments against.
For those unsure, blaktoofs position is an interesting hywpi, but has no relation to actual rules.
RAW, as proven a joined IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes, meaning the unit is still a nsf unit (that would be a rules purpose. Shocking I know) and so can evoke th rule.
Done. It really is as simple as that. Five pages on, there sure no substantive arguments against.
for those unsure, no RAW has been presented that specifies the IC may count as from the units detachment, or a unit in that units detachment, or of the faction of the unit it joins.
in the case of this special rule it requires the unit to be from the detachment, the detachment requires all models in the unit to be of the faction.
