Can independent characters join Skyhammer units?

If they do, can they be dragged into assault by the Assault Matines on the turn they drop?

It never really got resolved in the last thread

 Kholzerino wrote:
Can independent characters join Skyhammer units?

Provided they are Battle Brothers. Why would you think otherwise?

 Kholzerino wrote:
If they do, can they be dragged into assault by the Assault Matines on the turn they drop?

No. Independent Characters are never dragged in to anything by the unit they are joined to. They are as much willing participants in whatever actions the unit takes as any model in the unit that was there at purchase.

But if you mean could they Charge with the Assault Squad: The IC is part of the Assault Squad. The Assault Squad is given permission as a unit to Charge after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. Therefore, the IC can and is charging with the Assault Squad.

I am with Frozocrone in this one.

Talk to you opponent before starting the game.

No, an IC cannot join a Skyhammer Annihilation Force under any circumstances. There is no slot within the detachment to accommodate an IC like there is in a Demi Battle Company. Detachments do not operate like a CAD, you only get what is listed in the Detachment composition.

'Join', as in joining an Independent Character to a unit in reserve. No one said anything about taking an Independent Character as a part of the formation.

Yay, this one again!

RAW makes it legal, regardless of how much it can be exploited.

SJ

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a Skyhammer Annihilation Force under any circumstances. There is no slot within the detachment to accommodate an IC like there is in a Demi Battle Company. Detachments do not operate like a CAD, you only get what is listed in the Detachment composition.

The OP did say join the units, not the Formation...

And unless they are Formations, detachments DO act like CADs.

Charistoph wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a Skyhammer Annihilation Force under any circumstances. There is no slot within the detachment to accommodate an IC like there is in a Demi Battle Company. Detachments do not operate like a CAD, you only get what is listed in the Detachment composition.

The OP did say join the units, not the Formation...

And unless they are Formations, detachments DO act like CADs.

Formations are "Formation Detachments"

Wallur wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a Skyhammer Annihilation Force under any circumstances. There is no slot within the detachment to accommodate an IC like there is in a Demi Battle Company. Detachments do not operate like a CAD, you only get what is listed in the Detachment composition.

The OP did say join the units, not the Formation...

And unless they are Formations, detachments DO act like CADs.

Formations are "Formation Detachments"

And your point?

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a Skyhammer Annihilation Force under any circumstances. There is no slot within the detachment to accommodate an IC like there is in a Demi Battle Company. Detachments do not operate like a CAD, you only get what is listed in the Detachment composition.

True you can't purchase an IC as part of the formation, but you can always have a separate CAD, demi-company or allied detachment in addition to the formation, and since they are battle brothers you can join an allied IC in to a unit from the formation during reserves step.

Yes they can join and yes they can assault. So put Calgar and Belial in there if you want and DS with no scatter then assault. Skyhammer is fun, not civilised, but fun.

In all honesty the way I interpret the formation rules and ics is as follows.

The formation specifically grants special rules used by the units inside it that trigger at the start of the game.

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

If it was a decurion style detachment where all formations gain each others rules then yes it could work given the ic is a member of the core formation or a sub one.

You could still take the ic with the unit while in reserves but that unit would then lose the formation bonuses.

 Konrax wrote:
In all honesty the way I interpret the formation rules and ics is as follows.

The formation specifically grants special rules used by the units inside it that trigger at the start of the game.

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

If it was a decurion style detachment where all formations gain each others rules then yes it could work given the ic is a member of the core formation or a sub one.

You could still take the ic with the unit while in reserves but that unit would then lose the formation bonuses.

So, if a Formation grants Stubborn to a unit, the unit loses Stubborn if an IC joins it? Can you demonstrate where it states that (aside from scope) there is any difference between a Special Rule granted by a Formation's Datasheet and a Unit's Datasheet?

To my knowledge, there is no difference between a Datasheet Special Rule and a Universal Special Rule. There is no difference between a unit gaining a Special Rule from its own Datasheet, a Formation's Datasheet, or a Detachment's Command Benefits.

In order for units of a Formation to actually lose its rules, they would have to violate the unit lists and restrictions of the Formation's Datasheet.

And no, the Decurion does not grant all its Formations' rules to all the other Formations, they just get to keep their own and add the Decurion's Command Benefits on top of it.

 Konrax wrote:

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

So what you're saying is that if I join a Librarian from a Librarium Conclave to a Tactical Squad from a Combined Arms Detachment the Tactical Squad loses the Objective Secured rule?

For what it's worth, there was a recent ITC FAQ release that forbids independent characters benefiting from the skyhammer formation special rules.

So, the biggest tournament organizers and best players agree that it's not allowed, and I personally find their FAQs both reasonable, balanced, and a good guideline for questions that GW is unwilling to address.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
For what it's worth, there was a recent ITC FAQ release that forbids independent characters benefiting from the skyhammer formation special rules.

So, the biggest tournament organizers and best players agree that it's not allowed, and I personally find their FAQs both reasonable, balanced, and a good guideline for questions that GW is unwilling to address.

And that's good for ITC's House Rules.

Should we forbid Destroyer Lords from Destroyer Cults granting Preferred Enemy to Deathmarks next?

Charistoph wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
For what it's worth, there was a recent ITC FAQ release that forbids independent characters benefiting from the skyhammer formation special rules.

So, the biggest tournament organizers and best players agree that it's not allowed, and I personally find their FAQs both reasonable, balanced, and a good guideline for questions that GW is unwilling to address.

And that's good for ITC's House Rules.

Should we forbid Destroyer Lords from Destroyer Cults granting Preferred Enemy to Deathmarks next?

I'll admit that I haven't memorized the thing, but I quick ctrl+F of the document and a scan of the necron addenda didn't seem to prohibit destroyer lords granting PE to a joined unit of deathmarks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub

Moreover, I can't imagine under what basis that could be argued, though I am unfamiliar with the specific rules of the destroyer cult, according to the BRB, if one model has PE, the unit benefits - therefore a destroyer lord should allow PE to a joined unit of deathmarks.

And it's not entirely fair to call this 'house rules' - unless I'm mistaken, these are the rules that the largest professional US tournaments agree to follow, not just whatever your friends like to play with.

They are house rules really. Case in point is Swooping FMC's being immune to Blasts like Zooming Flyers whereas the rulebook seperates the two.

And yes, PE confers to the unit. Personally I think the IC can assault with the unit. Fair? I'm yet to actually play test against it socan't say for sure but in all the battle reports I seen, it's not that overpowered.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'll admit that I haven't memorized the thing, but I quick ctrl+F of the document and a scan of the necron addenda didn't seem to prohibit that rule.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub

Moreover, I can't imagine under what basis that could be argued, though I am unfamiliar with the specific rules of the destroyer cult, according to the BRB, if one model has PE, the unit benefits - therefore a destroyer lord should allow PE to a joined unit of deathmarks.

I was being sarcastic and trying to make a point at the same time. House Rules are as much for a personal/group sense of balancing as much as for clarity. ITCs ruling only affect ITC games. To apply them anywhere else is as pointless as using NFL rules for an NCAA game, or using the World Cup's rules for a local kids club.

Being a Formation Special Rule doesn't change the standards by which it is determined whether a Special Rule possessed by a unit affects an Independent Character joined to the unit. Specifically, the Skyhammer Formation's Special Rules only provide benefits to or affect units. These specific rules do not require possession of the rule in order to affect the model like Counter-Attack does. These specific rules do not require all members to have it like Deep Strike and Fleet do. They only require the units be part of the Formation, and the Independent Characters count as being part of the units they join. Simple.

RAW its legal to do so, plenty of other formations like the SW one specify that only IC's from the formation benefit, while this one does not.


BUT! its pretty OP the shenanigans you can do with this... most will house rule that you cannot, and the ITC houserules mirror this by not allowing it.


hope that helps

Charistoph wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
In all honesty the way I interpret the formation rules and ics is as follows.

The formation specifically grants special rules used by the units inside it that trigger at the start of the game.

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

If it was a decurion style detachment where all formations gain each others rules then yes it could work given the ic is a member of the core formation or a sub one.

You could still take the ic with the unit while in reserves but that unit would then lose the formation bonuses.

So, if a Formation grants Stubborn to a unit, the unit loses Stubborn if an IC joins it? Can you demonstrate where it states that (aside from scope) there is any difference between a Special Rule granted by a Formation's Datasheet and a Unit's Datasheet?

To my knowledge, there is no difference between a Datasheet Special Rule and a Universal Special Rule. There is no difference between a unit gaining a Special Rule from its own Datasheet, a Formation's Datasheet, or a Detachment's Command Benefits.

In order for units of a Formation to actually lose its rules, they would have to violate the unit lists and restrictions of the Formation's Datasheet.

And no, the Decurion does not grant all its Formations' rules to all the other Formations, they just get to keep their own and add the Decurion's Command Benefits on top of it.

Stubborn and objective secured ect don't fundamentally change the way in which the model moves and interacts on the table.

Just because you put a librian on bike with a terminator squad doesn't mean it can deep strike now.

Same with an ic with jump pack joining a marine squad, they don't get to reroll charges now just because one guy has a jump pack.

Rules that only a single model / character needs to give it to the entire unit they join specifically say only one model needs it.

The formation has specific rules for how the units can deploy from reserves and what they can do after, and makes no mention to these rules applying to any other unit that joins.

Based on the assumption that it doesn't blanket grant the rules to another character that joins, if a model joins without that rule you need to default to the standard deployment options granted by that character and not the formation.

You could say mix Belial in for the no scatter deep strike but he has no rule that guarantees he can come in on any particular turn or assault after deep striking...

Because these rules only apply to the units mentioned in the formation, and that it doesn't specifically say that the rules apply to any independent characters that join the unit would also gain it, I would say it is a no.

Like I said earlier abilities that transfer to the squad and vice versa specifically say it only requires a single model with this rule for the unit to perform x.

Edit: Charistof is the use of the word formation in this instance a noun or verb? As it will completely change the interpretation of nothing at all

Konrax - check when the units are grants the rule. Is the IC a member of the unit at that point?

Pretty sure his point was that you can't make a blanket restriction on one thing without effecting other things the work on the same mechanic. Saying the an IC joining a Skyhammer Assault Squad will cause the squad to lose their formation benefits would mean that an ObSec unit woukd lose ObSec if an IC joins them. Having one breaks the other. Or, you can just follow the rules as written snd see that it is legal regardless on whether or not you want it to be legal.

SJ

How exactly do people get around this rule from the BRB when they argue that the Skyhammer formation benefits should be treated as a special rule?

"Independent Character, Special Rules wrote: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 any special rule must have the "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" disclaimer, otherwise it will not be transferred to and from joined ICs, or am I missing something here?

Does the Relentless USR spread to ICs joined to a Skyhammer Dev Squad, too, then? I mean it is granted in exactly the same way, same wording and everything.

The unit doesn't have the rule until after the IC joins. Seriously, have you read the rule and understood the timing here?

nekooni wrote:
So any special rule must have the "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" disclaimer, otherwise it will not be transferred to and from joined ICs, or am I missing something here?

You're looking at the wrong part of Stubborn. We're told to look to Stubborn to show an example of where a rule says it benefits joined Independent Characters. Accordingly we have to look at who Stubborn benefits, and we're left with it benefiting "the unit".

At least one model in the unit having the rule is the condition for the rule (in the same way a rule may require a unit to fail a leadership test, or take an unsaved wound, or any other requirement) rather than explanatory of who benefits.

It in fact seems to me to be actually separating special rules that apply to a unit from special rules that apply only to models with the rule.

Hope this explains why it works:

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the IC is not attached.
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault.

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault.

All 3 premises are lifted exactly from the rules so you will struggle to disprove any. So with that in mind this works unless you have a specific restriction against it.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So any special rule must have the "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" disclaimer, otherwise it will not be transferred to and from joined ICs, or am I missing something here?

You're looking at the wrong part of Stubborn. We're told to look to Stubborn to show an example of where a rule says it benefits joined Independent Characters. Accordingly we have to look at who Stubborn benefits, and we're left with it benefiting "the unit".

At least one model in the unit having the rule is the condition for the rule (in the same way a rule may require a unit to fail a leadership test, or take an unsaved wound, or any other requirement) rather than explanatory of who benefits.

It in fact seems to me to be actually separating special rules that apply to a unit from special rules that apply only to models with the rule.

But all rules that only require one model in the unit to have the rule also state that as part of the rule. Which the Special Rules of the Skyhammer do not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit doesn't have the rule until after the IC joins. Seriously, have you read the rule and understood the timing here?

There's no need for that kind of tone, mate.

People argued with the Special Rules rules and logic, I simply questioned their reasoning. Yes, I've read the rule, which is why I was wondering why people are arguing that the IC in some way gains a "Special Rule" from joining the squads.

My personal opinion is that yes, you may join an IC to any unit of a Skyhammer, and it becomes part of the unit. The unit in its entirety is granted either the Relentless rule (applying to all models in appropriate units including ICs) or is given special permission to charge despite just having entered play via deep strike - this is done by the formations special rule and has nothing to do with how special rules are transfered from and to ICs. The only relevant rule here is this:

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.

Therefore, when the Special Rule First the Fire, then the Blade targets the unit on Turn 1, the IC is also affected. Just like it would be from, lets say, Misfortune or Forewarning.

Is that alright with you, nosferatu?

the issue with the rules for this formation, and likely the reason ITC ruled that they do not carry over...

is that they are not unit rules. the rules for some reason, state they affect the squad. The squad being the models purchased from the datasheet "assault squad" since that is an "assault squad"

unfortunately squad =/= unit as unit has a specific meaning, and squad references a datasheet and the models you can get from it, not the the tabletop unit.

yeah argue blah blah, but the rule no where says the unit is affected. Not sure how its a unit rule in some peoples minds, if it does not affect the unit....

I am sure the people making the ITC faq also noticed that the rules are not specified as affecting the unit.

So blaktoof can you argue against any of my premises where I literally prove squad = unit...

nekooni wrote:
But all rules that only require one model in the unit to have the rule also state that as part of the rule. Which the Special Rules of the Skyhammer do not.

The point is that requiring one model in the unit to have the rule does not tell you who receives the benefit.

You're saying Stubborn tells us joined Independent Characters gain the benefit of the rule because the benefit is granted to the unit if at least one model in the unit has the rule.

I'm pointing out that for example First the Fire, then the Blade tells us joined Indepenent Characters gain the benefit of the rule because the benefit is granted to the unit if that unit is an Assault Squad.

See how what we're wanting to find out is who benefits, not how the benefit is triggered and that's the same in both examples?

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with the rules for this formation, and likely the reason ITC ruled that they do not carry over...

is that they are not unit rules. the rules for some reason, state they affect the squad. The squad being the models purchased from the datasheet "assault squad" since that is an "assault squad"

unfortunately squad =/= unit as unit has a specific meaning, and squad references a datasheet and the models you can get from it, not the the tabletop unit.

yeah argue blah blah, but the rule no where says the unit is affected. Not sure how its a unit rule in some peoples minds, if it does not affect the unit....

I am sure the people making the ITC faq also noticed that the rules are not specified as affecting the unit.

I'd refer you to the 'Datasheets' section of the Space Marines Codex, I think number 4 is specifically stated to be "unit name".

"Assault Squad" is the unit.

that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

blaktoof wrote:
that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

There are 0 relevant hits for "Captain unit", "Squad unit", "unit of Tactical", "unit of Assault" in the entire Codex: Adeptus Astartes. The entire codex uses "Tactical Squad" or "Captain" whenever talking about the unit. In the case of the Captain unit that lead some people to assume that you couldn't upgrade the Captain model of a Captain unit to a Chapter Master model and still use it in a Demi-Company (which asks for "1 Captain").

And the BRB also explains why it is legal:
Occasionally, a Force Organisation slot will not specify a Battlefield Role, in which case any type of unit can be taken, or it will specify a particular unit or units, in which case only those particular units may (or must) be taken.
Which for our topic means that yes, GW uses "Captain" instead of "Captain unit" and explicitly means the unit. Same for most other units.

Some folks here should seriously get off their "ITC is love, ITC is life" thing. The ITC does NOT "clarify" rules, they make up house rules. Some of them contradict RAW, some contradict RAI, some are just reinforcing both and some contradict both. But what they are not is "OH THIS IS HOW TO READ THE RULE!" - They're just someones take on how to balance the rules.

nekooni wrote:
Some folks here should seriously get off their "ITC is love, ITC is life" thing. The ITC does NOT "clarify" rules, they make up house rules. Some of them contradict RAW, some contradict RAI, some are just reinforcing both and some contradict both. But what they are not is "OH THIS IS HOW TO READ THE RULE!" - They're just someones take on how to balance the rules.

This. A thousand times, this. I guess some people just can't get the taste of it out of their mouth enough to avoid it spewing out at every rules discussion opportunity they get.

So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

It affects the Assault Squad, right?

Is the IC part of the Assault Squad?

 Happyjew wrote:
It affects the Assault Squad, right?

Is the IC part of the Assault Squad?

Yep but the RAW never states it affects the unit for any of the skyhammer rules.

IC is a model in the unit.

IC is not a model from the datasheet Assault Squad.

So again, why do you think it doesn't say Unit in the rule unlike all the many other rules that state they affect an Unit?

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

blaktoof, as usual you're not even responding to people's points. You're simply avoiding the question and ignoring others' points and re-stating your own opinion without actually providing any rules support for it.

You're the one out of bounds here.

blaktoof wrote:

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

How could I explain why GW does something? It's just that GW NEVER uses "unit of Assault Squad". Look at the Codex. It's right there, it always uses "Assault Squad" and never uses "unit of Assault Squad" or similar. The rules of the Skyhammer formation "target" the Devs and the ASMs specifically, so they use their normal wording of "Assault Squads" , just like in the codex.

Oh - and "every" special rule?

Amphibious: A Chimera treats all water features as open terrain when it moves.
Repair: If a Rhino is Immobilised, then in subsequent turns it can attempt to repair

Every formation rule?

The Will of the Omnissiah: The Techmarine and Techmarine Gunners from this
Formation have a +1 bonus when
Empyric Channelling: At the start of the Psychic phase, you can nominate one
Librarian from this Formation.
Data Lattice: As long as at least one Stormtalon from this Formation has not been
completely destroyed, the Formation’s Stormraven Gunship has the Strafing Run special
rule.
Fury of the Storm: When a Terminator Squad from this Formation arrives from Deep
Strike Reserve or disembarks from a Transport vehicle from this Formation for the first
time, all ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots they
can make until the end of the turn.

Every detachment rule?
RESTRICTIONS:
Scout Bike Squads in this Formation must be equipped with cluster
mines.
RESTRICTIONS:
The Command Squad must take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The Chaplain must join the Command Squad during deployment, and
cannot leave it during the course of the battle.

That's just some rules picked from the Inquisition and Astartes Codexes

*edit* To sum it up: GW uses "unit" when it's not clear what kind of unit the rule will affect. e.g. Deep Strike special rule affects many units, therefore the rule uses "unit". Specific rules that target just one unit - like the Amphibious rule for the Chimera - usually (not always) use the name of the unit instead.
A mix of this can be seen in the Fury of the Storm special rule: it targets a Terminator Squad (the unit) and later very precisely describes what the effect is: ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots. This also clearly affects ICs joined to the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

I'm sorry, this does not fly at all.

If this is as you say, then the Assault Squads cannot charge after arriving from Deep Strike, joined IC or not, since there are no Assault Squads to be doing that. If I take fire from a Skyhammer Devastator Squad, I don't have to take a Leadership Test on 3D6, since no such thing exists. Heck, I don't even have to worry about being HIT by it. Heck, they aren't allowed to Deep Strike at all, since only units can Deep Strike.[/sarcasm]

I don't remember the Datasheet Legend saying anything about "Datasheet Name", it only lists "Unit Name". Units target units. Units Deep Strike. Units Charge. Units are put in Reserve. Therefore, the Skyhammer Formation rules can only be referring to units, some of them by name.


Sorry for the delay on this next response:

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn and objective secured ect don't fundamentally change the way in which the model moves and interacts on the table.

And this is determination of the RAW, how? A consideration for balance, yes. General RAW Legality, no.

 Konrax wrote:
Just because you put a librian on bike with a terminator squad doesn't mean it can deep strike now.

And at what point did you think I suggested it could? The Librarian is still considered part of the unit for determining if the unit can Deep Strike, and would Deep Strike with the unit if it could.

 Konrax wrote:
Same with an ic with jump pack joining a marine squad, they don't get to reroll charges now just because one guy has a jump pack.

Considering the entire unit has to use the same movement mode, of course. Just as much as if a non-Jump IC joined a Jump unit.

 Konrax wrote:
Rules that only a single model / character needs to give it to the entire unit they join specifically say only one model needs it.

Well, yeah, because that's what they say.

However, none of the Skyhammer Formation rules fall under this category, so why bring this up?

 Konrax wrote:
The formation has specific rules for how the units can deploy from reserves and what they can do after, and makes no mention to these rules applying to any other unit that joins.

Good thing that the units aren't joining the Formation. ICs are joining units in the Formation and counting as being members of that unit for all rules purposes.

 Konrax wrote:
Based on the assumption that it doesn't blanket grant the rules to another character that joins, if a model joins without that rule you need to default to the standard deployment options granted by that character and not the formation.

The Skyhammer Formation rules grant benefits to the units, just like Stubborn does and doesn't specify any models or required possession. The joined IC is part of the unit. So, the IC benefits along with any Marine, Sergeant, or Veteran Sergeant.

 Konrax wrote:
You could say mix Belial in for the no scatter deep strike but he has no rule that guarantees he can come in on any particular turn or assault after deep striking...

Because these rules only apply to the units mentioned in the formation, and that it doesn't specifically say that the rules apply to any independent characters that join the unit would also gain it, I would say it is a no.

If I shoot at a Skyhammer Assault Squad with a joined Belial, could I wound Belial? If that unit ever charges, does Belial Charge?

If so, then why is he not part of the unit when it goes to charge after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves?

 Konrax wrote:
Like I said earlier abilities that transfer to the squad and vice versa specifically say it only requires a single model with this rule for the unit to perform x.

That is never actually stated as a rule requirement. The rule states that the example of this exception is Stubborn, not requiring a single model with this rule for this unit to benefit.

And after all, it's not like the unit doesn't have a model with this rule so long as the Assault Squad or Devastator Squad exists as a unit.

 Konrax wrote:
Edit: Charistof is the use of the word formation in this instance a noun or verb? As it will completely change the interpretation of nothing at all

Considering that we are discussing the Skyhammer Formation, and Formations in general, what do you think?

Just want to point out that the reason why attached ICs benefit in this case is due to the IC rules for ongoing effects, which states that any benefits or penalties applied to the unit while the IC is attached also effect the IC. Which means that while the IC never gains the actual special rule, it does share the benefit when the rule triggers. ITC ruled against RAW in this case.

SJ

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

How could I explain why GW does something? It's just that GW NEVER uses "unit of Assault Squad". Look at the Codex. It's right there, it always uses "Assault Squad" and never uses "unit of Assault Squad" or similar. The rules of the Skyhammer formation "target" the Devs and the ASMs specifically, so they use their normal wording of "Assault Squads" , just like in the codex.

Oh - and "every" special rule?

Amphibious: A Chimera treats all water features as open terrain when it moves.
Repair: If a Rhino is Immobilised, then in subsequent turns it can attempt to repair

Every formation rule?

The Will of the Omnissiah: The Techmarine and Techmarine Gunners from this
Formation have a +1 bonus when
Empyric Channelling: At the start of the Psychic phase, you can nominate one
Librarian from this Formation.
Data Lattice: As long as at least one Stormtalon from this Formation has not been
completely destroyed, the Formation’s Stormraven Gunship has the Strafing Run special
rule.
Fury of the Storm: When a Terminator Squad from this Formation arrives from Deep
Strike Reserve or disembarks from a Transport vehicle from this Formation for the first
time, all ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots they
can make until the end of the turn.

Every detachment rule?
RESTRICTIONS:
Scout Bike Squads in this Formation must be equipped with cluster
mines.
RESTRICTIONS:
The Command Squad must take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The Chaplain must join the Command Squad during deployment, and
cannot leave it during the course of the battle.

That's just some rules picked from the Inquisition and Astartes Codexes

*edit* To sum it up: GW uses "unit" when it's not clear what kind of unit the rule will affect. e.g. Deep Strike special rule affects many units, therefore the rule uses "unit". Specific rules that target just one unit - like the Amphibious rule for the Chimera - usually (not always) use the name of the unit instead.
A mix of this can be seen in the Fury of the Storm special rule: it targets a Terminator Squad (the unit) and later very precisely describes what the effect is: ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots. This also clearly affects ICs joined to the unit.

i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

blaktoof wrote:
i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

These rules are always on a case by case basis. MOST of those examples reference units when a unit name is presented. In fact, in many cases, they could be referencing nothing but units since nothing but units operate under those names in the game.

However, there are quite a few units whose member models have the same name as the unit. Most of these are Xenos units where there are no characters as part of the unit or single model units like Transports. Deathmarks, Rhinos, Hormagants, etc. Interestingly enough, when their own unique datasheet rules reference the unit being affected, they actually use 'unit' as part of the description for the affect.

A good example of the above are the two unique Datasheet Rules for Deathmarks:


Ethereal Interception uses the generic term "unit" as well as the descriptor "Deathmark unit" for the target of its benefit. This indicates that ICs that have joined this unit would benefit along with the original Deathmark models that start with it.

Hunters From Hyperspace, however, references the Deathmarks in the unit. Since the concept of "unit in this unit" doesn't translate well at all, it is definitely a reference to models that have this name, and so wouldn't include any ICs that joined the unit (unless they were Deathmarks, too! ) .

Let's try it this way:

A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

Aspect Host says models from the formation, not units.

 Konrax wrote:
A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

Actually, the Special Rule must specify, like Stubborn does, in order for the IC to have a unit's Special Rule confer to them, and vice versa. And Stubborn does not actually confer any rule to any model in the unit.

And there is no rule that differentiates a difference between a rulebook USR, a Unit Datasheet Special Rule, a Formation Datasheet Special Rule, or a Detachment Command Benefit's special rule.

 Konrax wrote:
With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

It is a dangerous assumption to make that the IC in question is from the same detachment, considering what this discussion is about. There are a few "HQ" Formations out there, such as the Necron Royal Court, which can provide a few of HQ ICs without taking up a CAD's slots.

And has been pointed out by Stubborn, possession of a rule does not mean an IC cannot be affected by it.

 Konrax wrote:
The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

Formation Special Rules are Special Rules granted to the units of the Formations. Look it up in a 7th Edition codex datasheet section where it discusses Formation Datasheets.

How a model gains a rule is not a requirement for consideration. A unit gaining Stubborn from a Formation Special Rule or Detachment Command Benefit is no different than if it was listed on their own unit datasheet.

 Konrax wrote:
For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

I'd have to read it fully, since context is important, but based on your description, if the IC is part of the unit at the beginning of the game, and the benefit is granted to the units, and the IC is part of the unit it joined?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Aspect Host says models from the formation, not units.

And that is why I like to be familiar with a rule before making a final call.

 Konrax wrote:
Let's try it this way:

A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

Actually, the BRB doesn't say that the ICs gain the special rule a unit has... it sais it RETAINS any Special rule/Blessing/Malediction that started the effect while they are part of the unit. But yes, nothing about Formation Rules.
In fact, formations specify "X in this formation".
Then, the "Assault squad" wanting to charge is not the "Assault squad in the Skyhammer Formation".

 Konrax wrote:
With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

About objective Secure, as you said, The models grant the unit the rule. And is the unit, not a model that capture objectives. (BRB)

In the case of Formations, is the Formation that grants the rule to the models/unit, not otherwise.

Wallur wrote:
But yes, nothing about Formation Rules.

Good thing that there is no such thing as "Formation Rules" in what we are referring to in this discussion. Formations possess Special Rules just like Units possess Special Rules. These Special Rules of the Formation are granted to all the units/models in the Formation.

No distinction is made that Special Rules granted by a Formation are to be treated any differently than a Special Rule granted by a unit's datasheet.

Wallur wrote:
In fact, formations specify "X in this formation".
Then, the "Assault squad" wanting to charge is not the "Assault squad in the Skyhammer Formation".

Clarify, please.

If you mean that an IC that joins an Assault Squad changes the name of the Assault Squad, could you show where in the rules that is stated?

If you mean that if an IC joins a unit from a different Formation, it removes the unit from the Formation, could you reference where in the rules that is stated?

Wallur wrote:
In the case of Formations, is the Formation that grants the rule to the models/unit, not otherwise.

In the case of the Skyhammer Formation, the Formation grants the rule "First the Fire, Then the Blade". This rule, possessed by both units and models originally purchased for the Formation, then grants Relentless to Devastator Squads from this Formation which arrived from Deep Strike Reserves. It also grants permission to Assault Squads from this Formation to Charge on the same turn they arrived from Deep Strike Reserves.

The IC who joins any of these 4-8 units (Combat Squad) will not possess "First the Fire, Then the Blade", nor will it be conferred upon them. However, if they are part of the unit when it arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, they either receive Relentless or the permission to charge because they are part of the respective squad.

40K Rulebook wrote:Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

A HQ independent character in a CAD is not a troops unit and therefore does not have the objective secured rule, as per the quote above. You stated that...

 Konrax wrote:

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

So by your argument, if you add a HQ independent character in a CAD to a troops unit from the same CAD, as the IC does not have the objective secured rule, all models in that unit lose the rule.

 Konrax wrote:

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic.

And then this makes no sense as you argue against what you said before. It doesnt matter what detachment the IC is from. unless its a troops choice IC from a CAD or allied detachement, it would not have objective secured, so adding it to the squad which does immediately removes the special rule according to your argument.

ItsPug wrote:

40K Rulebook wrote:Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

A HQ independent character in a CAD is not a troops unit and therefore does not have the objective secured rule, as per the quote above. You stated that...

 Konrax wrote:

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

So by your argument, if you add a HQ independent character in a CAD to a troops unit from the same CAD, as the IC does not have the objective secured rule, all models in that unit lose the rule.

 Konrax wrote:

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic.

And then this makes no sense as you argue against what you said before. It doesnt matter what detachment the IC is from. unless its a troops choice IC from a CAD or allied detachement, it would not have objective secured, so adding it to the squad which does immediately removes the special rule according to your argument.

I meant it removes the rule in this context because the ic isn't granted any special formation modifiers because they are not part of the sky hammer formation.

Obj sec wouldn't be removed by an ic joining.

But a character not part of the formation shouldn't get the formation rules just because they joined a unit in the formation prior to the game starting.

See my example in the same post about the aspect warhost formation that you didn't reference.

Otherwise the ultimate list would be a drago star with every awesome IA ic mixed with all units in this formation that would cause a turn 1 tabling without your opponent even getting to move a model.

If they did join the unit would be limited to the movement and reserve capabilities of the weaker unit. Just like a bike ic joining an infantry unit doesn't allow it to move 12 or vice versa.

 Konrax wrote:
I meant it removes the rule in this context because the ic isn't granted any special formation modifiers because they are not part of the sky hammer formation.

Obj sec wouldn't be removed by an ic joining.

But a character not part of the formation shouldn't get the formation rules just because they joined a unit in the formation prior to the game starting.

Okay, so which part of the Skyhammer Formation Special Rules require possession by all the models of a unit to function?

See my example in the same post about the aspect warhost formation that you didn't reference.

Wasn't that debunked because you misquoted the rule, or the rule in question did not reference units getting the benefit?

Otherwise the ultimate list would be a drago star with every awesome IA ic mixed with all units in this formation that would cause a turn 1 tabling without your opponent even getting to move a model.

Oh, so RAW doesn't mean Rules As Written, but Rules Assessing Weakness. Good to know.

If they did join the unit would be limited to the movement and reserve capabilities of the weaker unit. Just like a bike ic joining an infantry unit doesn't allow it to move 12 or vice versa.

A bike IC in an Infantry unit can move 12", though, so long as the unit is big enough to not lose coherency.

Reserve capabilities are variable. All models, including Joined ICs, must have the rule to be in Deep Strike Reserves. However, only one model in the unit has to have access to Outflank in order for the unit to be able to Outflank.

The first Skyhammer rule requires Deep Strike be available to all units, but that is the only part of a rule that requires all models to possess a certain rule in the Skyhammer Formation.

You'd be surprised at how quickly you run out of points by even adding just Calgar and Belial (for no scatter DS) if you want to remain battleforged (though that is not a necessity as Formation rules work in unbound). Power level is not what this is about but rules are.

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached. 
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. 

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault. 

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

All 3 premises are lifted exactly from the rules so you will struggle to disprove any. So with that in mind this works unless you have a specific restriction against it. 

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

These rules are always on a case by case basis. MOST of those examples reference units when a unit name is presented. In fact, in many cases, they could be referencing nothing but units since nothing but units operate under those names in the game.

However, there are quite a few units whose member models have the same name as the unit. Most of these are Xenos units where there are no characters as part of the unit or single model units like Transports. Deathmarks, Rhinos, Hormagants, etc. Interestingly enough, when their own unique datasheet rules reference the unit being affected, they actually use 'unit' as part of the description for the affect.

A good example of the above are the two unique Datasheet Rules for Deathmarks:

Spoiler:

Ethereal Interception: If this unit is in Deep Strike Reserve, immediately after an enemy unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve this unit may choose to immediately arrive using the rules for Deep Strike (if this unit does not enter play in this manner, make Reserve Rolls for it as normal in subsequent turns). At the end of that enemy Movement phase, any friendly Deathmarks unit that arrived on the board in this manner during that turn may fire its weapons at any enemy unit that arrived from Reserves that phase; any Deathmarks unit that does so cannot fire its weapons in its following turn.

Spoiler:

Hunters from Hyperspace: During the player turn in which this unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve, all shooting attacks made by the Deathmarks in this unit will wound on To Wound rolls of 2+, regardless of the victim’s Toughness.

Ethereal Interception uses the generic term "unit" as well as the descriptor "Deathmark unit" for the target of its benefit. This indicates that ICs that have joined this unit would benefit along with the original Deathmark models that start with it.

Hunters From Hyperspace, however, references the Deathmarks in the unit. Since the concept of "unit in this unit" doesn't translate well at all, it is definitely a reference to models that have this name, and so wouldn't include any ICs that joined the unit (unless they were Deathmarks, too! ) .

both of those rules take the time to specify "unit". Do you see any rule in the skyhammer rules that grants it to units? I do not....flingitnow and some others seem to see the word "unit" in the rules, despite it not being there at all.

Assault Squads =/= unit.

It may = models purchased from the "assault squad" datasheet, as that is the unit entry name for models purchased from that datasheet which do form an unit on their own...however that does not mean the name of a datasheet is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes. In many instances the models from a datasheet will be an unit from that contained datasheet, but some may become parts of other units. ie an IC "space marine captain" is an unit from the "space marine captain datasheet". You can join it to another unit, "assault squad" however "space marine captain" is not the unit, but the name of the unit. When it joins the assault squad the IC is part of the "unit" that was purchased from the assault squad data sheet, but it is not part of the assault squad datasheet. Just as if you join an IC, lets say Ork Warboss, to another IC, lets say Ork Bigmek. They do not both become "ork big mek" they are just in an unit together. One is the name of the unit entry, the other is the physical unit on the tabletop. They are not the same thing.

In the rules you cited, it does use the name sometime but it uses the word "unit" which is a rules basis for things in this game. In the case of skyhammer it never uses the word "unit" in the rules to give permission for models in the unit to benefit. It leaves only permission for datasheet names to benefit. Which could be the models purchased from those datasheets, but cannot be models not purchased from those datasheets.





yes an IC counts as a member of an unit for rules purposes, but we are left with the rule that any unit cannot be part of more than one detachment/formation prior to deployment. The IC rules do not give exception to that. As such the IC cannot be counted as a member from the assault squad datasheet which is in a formation other than its formation/detachment, ever without a special rule telling us specifically that is the case. The skyhammer rules never in their writing reference the unit benefits, therefore an attached IC has no RAW permission to benefit from the rules.

if they intended to let units benefit from the rules they could have easily stated "any units of assault squads with this special rule may assault and slaughter things by xxx" but they did not, the lack of the inclusion of the word "unit" which is what is required to grant permission for a rule to affect an unit, leaves us with no RAW permission to extend the rule to the unit. That it affects all the models in the unit prior to an IC joining does not mean it affects all the models when an IC joins by default, because it is not a rule that specifies it affects "units".

 FlingitNow wrote:
You'd be surprised at how quickly you run out of points by even adding just Calgar and Belial (for no scatter DS) if you want to remain battleforged (though that is not a necessity as Formation rules work in unbound). Power level is not what this is about but rules are.

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached. 
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. 

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault. 

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

All 3 premises are lifted exactly from the rules so you will struggle to disprove any. So with that in mind this works unless you have a specific restriction against it. 

Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation.

Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it.

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to ics that join.

Just reposting, because you are both arguing over nothing.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just want to point out that the reason why attached ICs benefit in this case is due to the IC rules for ongoing effects, which states that any benefits or penalties applied to the unit while the IC is attached also effect the IC. Which means that while the IC never gains the actual special rule, it does share the benefit when the rule triggers. ITC ruled against RAW in this case.

SJ

SJ

blaktoof wrote:
Assault Squads =/= unit.

Then I guess the Assault Marines cannot assault after deep striking because units charge, and units are forbidden from charging after the turn they come in from reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Konrax wrote:
Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation.

Nobody said there was a slot to take an HQ unit in the formation. Nobody is arguing you can.

Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter.

Nobody has claimed the rule transfers to the IC. An Autarch in a unit of Dark Reapers does not have SnP, but it still benefits.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it.

Huh? The formation is available as a stand-alone or as part of a Gladius. If it is part of the Gladius, the units get the special rules from both the Formation and the Detachment.

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to ics that join.

And while the IC is attached the Assault Squads and Devastator Squads are still from the formation. According to some however, Assault/Devastator Squad =/= unit which just breaks the formation as only units can charge or be nominated to shoot.

Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

 
Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

As for an example that works similarly. ObSec say you add an IC to a Tactical Squad in an Angel's Wrath Formation.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to icsthat join.

Literally the first premises mentioned:


Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.  
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.  

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.  

blaktoof wrote:
both of those rules take the time to specify "unit".

" Ethereal Interception" does for receiving the benefit, yes. "Hunters From Hyperspace" uses unit to reference the trigger and where it says "Deathmarks in the unit" benefitting from the rule. Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit", as opposed to "specific models in the unit", you either haven't actually read the rule, or talking out of your aft orifice.

Do you see any rule in the skyhammer rules that grants it to units? I do not....flingitnow and some others seem to see the word "unit" in the rules, despite it not being there at all.

In every rule. When I get a chance to quote them for you, I'll provide fancy highlights.

Assault Squads =/= unit.

Really? Where does it say otherwise? The Datasheets Legend seems to think that "Assault Squad" is the unit name. And last time I checked, when you called something by its name, you were referring to it, not its blueprints or reference sheet.

It may = models purchased from the "assault squad" datasheet, as that is the unit entry name for models purchased from that datasheet which do form an unit on their own...however that does not mean the name of a datasheet is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes. In many instances the models from a datasheet will be an unit from that contained datasheet, but some may become parts of other units. ie an IC "space marine captain" is an unit from the "space marine captain datasheet". You can join it to another unit, "assault squad" however "space marine captain" is not the unit, but the name of the unit. When it joins the assault squad the IC is part of the "unit" that was purchased from the assault squad data sheet, but it is not part of the assault squad datasheet. Just as if you join an IC, lets say Ork Warboss, to another IC, lets say Ork Bigmek. They do not both become "ork big mek" they are just in an unit together. One is the name of the unit entry, the other is the physical unit on the tabletop. They are not the same thing.

Provide the rules quote, or at least a reference to justify this position please. We have proven this wrong on multiple occasions, where does it say it?

In the rules you cited, it does use the name sometime but it uses the word "unit" which is a rules basis for things in this game. In the case of skyhammer it never uses the word "unit" in the rules to give permission for models in the unit to benefit. It leaves only permission for datasheet names to benefit. Which could be the models purchased from those datasheets, but cannot be models not purchased from those datasheets.

Spoiler:

Hunters from Hyperspace: During the player turn in which this unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve, all shooting attacks made by the Deathmarks in this unit will wound on To Wound rolls of 2+, regardless of the victim’s Toughness.

Spoiler:

Ethereal Interception: If this unit is in Deep Strike Reserve, immediately after an enemy unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve this unit may choose to immediately arrive using the rules for Deep Strike (if this unit does not enter play in this manner, make Reserve Rolls for it as normal in subsequent turns). At the end of that enemy Movement phase, any friendly Deathmarks unit that arrived on the board in this manner during that turn may fire its weapons at any enemy unit that arrived from Reserves that phase; any Deathmarks unit that does so cannot fire its weapons in its following turn.

Not according to the rules and their context.

yes an IC counts as a member of an unit for rules purposes, but we are left with the rule that any unit cannot be part of more than one detachment/formation prior to deployment. The IC rules do not give exception to that. As such the IC cannot be counted as a member from the assault squad datasheet which is in a formation other than its formation/detachment, ever without a special rule telling us specifically that is the case. The skyhammer rules never in their writing reference the unit benefits, therefore an attached IC has no RAW permission to benefit from the rules.

if they intended to let units benefit from the rules they could have easily stated "any units of assault squads with this special rule may assault and slaughter things by xxx" but they did not, the lack of the inclusion of the word "unit" which is what is required to grant permission for a rule to affect an unit, leaves us with no RAW permission to extend the rule to the unit. That it affects all the models in the unit prior to an IC joining does not mean it affects all the models when an IC joins by default, because it is not a rule that specifies it affects "units".

Instead, they gave us Stubborn as a reference, and Unit Names to identify specific units. And I am just using that as the standard.

The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules.

That you even admit this and point it out when you say:

Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit"

And then go on to say the opposite is utterly baffling.

Yes Deathmarks in this unit references models bought from the deathmark datasheet with the unit name "deathmarks". That you understand the unit name is not the same as unit Here is good...but then you go on and say the opposite about assault squads?

Really?

blaktoof wrote:
The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules.

Proof, proof, you need proof. Not to mention, completely nonsensical. Where does it say that the unit purchased from the datasheet drops its name from purchase point to deployment?

blaktoof wrote:
That you even admit this and point it out when you say:

Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit"

And then go on to say the opposite is utterly baffling.

That's because you are ignoring the context for some bizarre reason I cannot understand. "Deathmarks" is the name of both unit and model. It is up at the top which the Datasheet Legend states as Unit Name and says, "Deathmarks". "Deathmark is also the name of model as listed in the profile. "Deathmark" is also listed in Unit Composition where it states "5 Deathmarks".

blaktoof wrote:
Yes Deathmarks in this unit references models bought from the deathmark datasheet with the unit name "deathmarks". That you understand the unit name is not the same as unit Here is good...but then you go on and say the opposite about assault squads?

You are confusing two different concepts at this point. Unit and Model. The Deathmark unit starts with 5 Deathmark models. The Deathmark unit can then add 5 more Deathmark models. The datasheet does not tell you to purchase 5 Deathmark "units" for every Datasheet, after all. Nor is it telling you that the "units in this unit" are capable of Wounding on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves.


Now, using the Datasheet Legend provided by Codex: Adeptus Astartes Ultra Space Marines which states that the #4 position is "4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.", I will point out in bold red every mention of unit or a unit in the Skyhammer Formation Rules that affect the possessing unit and thus affect a joined IC. Note, mention of units that are the targets of the affect, but not possessing them, will not be marked.
Formation:
2 Assault Squads
2 Devastator Squads

Restrictions:
Each Devastator Squad must take a Drop pod as a Dedicated Transport. Each Assault Squad must be equipped with jump packs.

Special Rules:

The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules. 

Sorry what? The Assault Squad stops being the Assault Squad when on the tabletop? I presume you have some rules to support this bizarre claim?

There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

And then there is that pesky Battle Brothers rule that overrides that.

After all, if you need to consider Alliances, the two are not from the same detachment.

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

There is that pesky rule in the formation, where it gives the benefits of the rule to the unit. Tell me, is the IC a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes? Or will you ignore this rule?

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

Who claimed the IC belonged to the Formation? Again you bring up something irrelevant and then argue against that. Have you got any arguments against the premises I posted? Anything to defend your stance? Anything relevant at all?

How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units.

I don't see anywhere posted here that the sky hammer can be taken as part of a gladius strike force either, if it is I would like to see it posted.

If it could be taken as part of a decurion style formation I could see it possibly working but from what I read the sky hammer was a stand alone formation.

Otherwise other things that people quoted don't apply for reasons already posted in this thread.

 Konrax wrote:
How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units.

As stated, just like Stubborn does. How is the source of the rules make any difference?

If a Formation provides Stubborn in its Special Rules, would this not affect an IC just as much as it would if it was on the unit's datasheet?

If not, your rules source for this is... where?

The datasheet legend just grants the units the Formation special rules just as if they were part of the unit's datasheet. No mention of only affecting Formation models is ever mentioned. The rulebook doesn't say anything about Formation Special Rules in the Special Rules heading. Formations and Ally rules do not forbid it. Heck, just allowing ICs to join another detachment's units is more than enough permission for the rules to to benefit them.

How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units. 

How can they benefit? See my explanation if you think it is wrong tell me which of the 3 premises is incorrect. Who said anything about changing force composition? Again you bring up an irrelevant point and try to argue against it. So if you are not a troll and genuinely disagree with my interpretation please argue against it. To do this you must either point to an incorrect premise or point to a specific restriction that prevents my interpretation from working.

I don't see anywhere posted here that the sky hammer can be taken as part of a gladius strike force either, if it is I would like to see it posted. 

If it could be taken as part of a decurion style formation I could see it possibly working but from what I read the sky hammer was a stand alone formation. 

Yeah I don't see how it can be part of a Gladius. However if it could be why on earth would that change anything? Why does being a stand alone Formation make any difference at all?

Otherwise other things that people quoted don't apply for reasons already posted in this thread.

Actually no one as yet has even attempted to prove a single one of my premises incorrect nor have they provided any sort of restriction against an IC from benefiting from Formation rules, nor a restriction against units benefiting from formation or detachment rules whilst an IC is attached.

Say I have a Space Marine Tactical squad as part of either a CAD or Demi Company does it still have ObSec when I add the Captain from the same detachment? What about when I add an Inquisitor? Or a Captain from a different detachment?

Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

gungo wrote:
Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

So do you have any actual support for your position or just wild claims about what random stores play. So do you have any arguments against any of my premises?

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached. 
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. 

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault. 

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit ffrom two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment.

Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an ic who joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit.

So really your argument boils down to you adding the word unit to these rules for this formation which doesn't actually exist In The rules.

Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules.

And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does.

And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments.

The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit ffrom two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment. 

I never said the IC was part of the Formation. The rules say you can't belong to more than 1 detachment. They do not say you can't benefit from rules of another detachment. Like for instance ObSec. Are you saying a tactical squad in a CAD loses ObSec when you attach an IC? Say for instance an Inquisitor?

Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an icwho joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit. 

You do realise you defeated your own point at the end there? For those that missed it the Assault Squad is the specific unit we are discussing a unit of which the IC is considered a normal member for all rules purposes.

Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules. 

If the rule says you receive a benefit in X situation you receive the benefit in that situation. There are many examples of models benefiting from rules they do not have. Stealth, Shrouded, stubborn or ObSec are all examples for instance.

And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does. 

Again people on your side of the argument keep bringing up irrelevant things that no one has claimed and then argue against those points. No one has said the IC ever gains the Formation special rule.

And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments. 

Adding made up rules does not give credence to your argument. No rules states a model cannot benefit from multiple formation or detachment rules. Only that he cannot belong to multiple formations or detachments.

The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

The reason we ignore your points is because they have no bearing on our claims or you have flat made up rules. Now again I ask you to actually argue against our argument not against a bunch of points you have made up. So which of my 3 premises is incorrect? Just give me a number first then we will discuss that.

Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

The way I see it, and the way I agreed with last time this was debated:

IC joins Skyhammer at deployment.

Unit (including the IC) Deep Strikes.

Special rule granting the unit permission to charge despite having deployed via Deep Strike the same turn kicks in upon Deep Striking. The unit thus does not actually have permission to assault from Deep Strike until well after the IC has joined it.

IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes, the rule says the Assault Squads are allowed to charge, ergo the IC is part of the Assault Squad for the purposes of being allowed to assault after Deep Striking. The only potential flaw I can see is if "Assault Squad" somehow refers to something other than the Unit by the name "Assault Squad" in the formation, which it doesn't because it'd make the entire rule nonsensical.

 Konrax wrote:
Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

Here are the arguments that no one has even tried to rebuke:


Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.  
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.  

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.  

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.  
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault.  

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

This is just the same old can I weasel my HQ in an illegal allied transport by using the line "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes," discussion all over again. The "for all rules purposes" is not interpreted in this way by a large majority of the gamers for years now. So while you might be right* the majority -> almost all players you will ever play against disagree with you on this part.

(*[Edit] I'm not saying that you are)

gungo wrote:Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

And the same 5 people offer counter-arguments while providing no proof. In fact, certain peoples only make declarations that are counter to every single word, legend, and convention of the game (see Blacktoof's assertion that Formation's references to Assault and Devastator Squads are referring to datasheets, not units).

gungo wrote:Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

Link for Warhammer World FAQ? I've heard a few tournaments allowing it.

Not to mention, tournaments are not obligated to run anything RAW, and will make changes for areas they think need balanced. While I will argue that the RAW is that IC's are affected by their rules just like they are by Stubborn, I have never once argued whether this was balanced.

gungo wrote:There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

No, it is not. "First the Fire, Then the Blade" is gained during army purchase just like the Necron Reclamation Legion gaining Move Through Cover is gained on purchase, not deployment, or a Blood Angel Tactical Squad gaining Furious Charge gaining Furious Charge on purchase, not deployment.

gungo wrote:Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

It is no more made up than it is for Stubborn. Stubborn does not grant its rule to the models in the unit, yet the Leadership of every model in the unit remains unaffected during Morale Checks and Pinning Tests. There is no mention of a difference between Formation Datasheet Special Rules and Universal Special Rules Can you properly reference it?

gungo wrote:Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

I left Space Marines a long time ago. So, that can't be my reason. I think Mr. Shine runs Eldar. So, that can't be his. Could it be that we are following the rules we have read, and no one has been able to present any supportable argument?

gungo wrote:You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit from two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment.

I think you're stretching.

It never actually states that a model cannot benefit from two detachments, only they cannot be members. And it has never been our position that the IC becomes members of the detachment, just members of the unit when rules affect them and actions are taken.

It has never been a supportable position that possession is the only way a model can benefit from a Special Rule. Possession is not required for most Universal Special Rules that affect the unit. Indeed, those tend to be the exception (ex: Deep Strike, Fleet). While there are numerous unit-benefiting units which do benefit non-possessing models, such as Stubborn, Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful

gungo wrote:Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an ic who joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit.

The first rules mention unit. And this concept that joined ICs are not "assault squad" are ignoring datasheet legends and seem to think that Marines and Sergeants are "assault squads". Can you reference when a unit is called by name it is only referencing the original members of the unit?

gungo wrote:So really your argument boils down to you adding the word unit to these rules for this formation which doesn't actually exist In The rules.

The IC rules state that the IC counts as being part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the Special Rules do not automatically confer, and are specifically mentioned, the unit name is not mentioned as being ignored.

gungo wrote:Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules.

Not literally, no. But then, let's follow the rule chain:
Independent Characters > Special Rules - "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."
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."

Now, IC rules require the rule to specify that the Independent Character be included as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Where does Stubborn literally specify Independent Characters are included?

It does not. It can only be implied because the rule affects the unit in its entirety.

gungo wrote:And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does.

And certain people seem to be ignoring the example Stubborn provides, even though it is used as the example of exception. And "First the Fire, Then the Blade" specify ICs as much as Stubborn does.

gungo wrote:And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments.

Not ignoring. I simply do not acknowledge rules that do not exist. There are no rules that state a model can never benefit from joining another detachment, just that they cannot be part of another detachment.

And yet, the rules for Battle Brothers state that ICs can join units from other detachments. It does not state they do not benefit from this. Battle Brother units can also benefit from many of the other buffs, like Warlord bubble buffs.

So, where exactly does it state that models can never benefit from another detachment again?

gungo wrote:The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

Of course we fail to accept the above. Most, if not all, have been made up rules to justify denying ICs from benefiting from powerful rules and cannot, nor have not, been properly referenced.

Konrax wrote:Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

It seems that some of our requests for information and proper reference are also being ignored. Instead, we reference rules, and we are accused of making things up. We counter with rules references and we get accusations or silence.

oldzoggy wrote:
This is just the same old can I weasel my HQ in an illegal allied transport by using the line "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes," discussion all over again. The "for all rules purposes" is not interpreted in this way by a large majority of the gamers for years now. So while you might be right* the majority -> almost all players you will ever play against disagree with you on this part.

(*[Edit] I'm not saying that you are)

Hardly. In 7th Edition, if you can join an IC to a Battle Brother unit, and Battle Brothers can mount Transports.

In 6th Edition, it was explicit that only that Battle Brothers could no mount the Transport, and no distinction was made for this just being the units that were forbidden.

It is 100% this discussion all over again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/571066.page#6393202

You only need to swap "can't assault from deep-strike" with "can't enter allied transports" and it is basicly the same discussion it all comes down to the interpretation of the "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes" line.

That line has not changed it did not work then and it still does not work now.

oldzoggy wrote:
It is 100% this discussion all over again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/571066.page#6393202

You only need to swap "can't assault from deep-strike" with "can't enter allied transports" and it is basicly the same discussion it all comes down to the interpretation of the "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes" line.

That line has not changed it did not work then and it still does not work now.

Not quite. The 6th Edition Battle Brothers rule states, "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." No mention of unit (either generically or named) is made.

I'm sorry my comments might be confusing. What I tried to say was.

Yes you can join a unit of deep-striking assault marines from an other detachment if your IC can deep strike there is noting wrong with that.

The discussion that he then can assault with the unit because he is part of the unit, is the same discussion as the discussion we had in 6th.
So no you can't assault with IC's attached to the assault squad.

oldzoggy wrote:
I'm sorry my comments might be confusing. What I tried to say was.

Yes you can join a unit of deep-striking assault marines from an other detachment if your IC can deep strike there is noting wrong with that.

The discussion that he then can assault with the unit because he is part of the unit, is the same discussion as the discussion we had in 6th.

It was coming in clear, but apparently you weren't understanding what I was saying in response.

The 6th Ed rules forbidding Battle Brothers from entering Transports was not on a unit-by-unit basis, specifically. If it was, then there would be an argument of RAI. Since units were not mentioned in this line, considering it from the perspective of models is valid, and so a joined IC would stop a Battle Brother unit from entering their Transport.

Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Without that line it would not work.

No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

First the Fire, then the Blade says you need to be a Devastator or Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arriving from Deep Strike Reserve that turn in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all members of Devastator or Assault Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arriving from Deep Strike Reserve that turn since it only requires the unit be those things.

Without that line it would not work.

Errr, no. The rules tell us to refer to Stubborn to see where a rule tells us whether it benefits joined Independent Characters or not. Stubborn tells us it benefits the unit, just like for example First the Fire, then the Blade.

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

This is wrong because those questions are not all parallels to the situation we're discussing, but I'll answer them.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

First and foremost, no one is saying the joined Independent Character is given the special rule. The point is that the existence of the special rule grants an ability to the unit, so in the same way a joined IC does not receive the Stubborn rule they simply receive thebenefit of the rule

Feel No Pain specifically refers to models with the special rule, so naturally a joined IC will not gain the benefit of Feel No Pain unless they actually have the rule.0

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

So long as all conditions for the unit gaining Feel No Pain are met and the Independent Character is joined to the unit at the time those conditions are met then yes, of course.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Can you demonstrate one single unique datasheet special rule where at least one model in the unit does not have the rule?

In addition, can you demonstrate that this key phrase is what the IC rule is referring to by "specified in the rule itself"?

 Konrax wrote:
Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

So, you are saying that this establishes the "minimum" requirement for the rule to be conferred, and any case where it does not carry this phrase automatically means all models must carry it? If so, can you provide a reference where it states this?

If so, then why does Deep Strike and Fleet still require all models in the unit to possess the rule in order for the unit to benefit? And why does the Independent Character still qualify as a limit when it cannot benefit?

 Konrax wrote:
Without that line it would not work.

Spiritually, you are correct, to a point. However, there is a difference between requiring a statement and providing an example. The reference to Stubborn, nor Stubborn itself, actually define this as a required phrase.

 Konrax wrote:
No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

You are correct. IC rules do not even say this, which is what refers you to the example. Yet, you are using it as one. Stubborn is given as an example, but it never actually makes any statement on what part of it qualifies.

Also, this phrase standard is not met by any unique datasheet rule. So, unless the intention is that only USRs and the occasionally rare Army Special Rule are capable of including ICs in unit affects, than this standard is quite unreasonable.

 Konrax wrote:
For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

On one hand it says they can't, and then says then can. Stubborn is given as the benchmark (along with Blind). And it never really specifies using any version of doing so in the English language.

 Konrax wrote:
If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

Does FNP meet the standards we have presented? No it does not. It is not a rule that provides a unit-benefit. It only affects the model, much like Relentless. It does not affect the unit like Slow and Purposeful, Stubborn, or Ethereal Interception does.

But here's a question for you, if a Blood Angels Captain joins a Reclusiarch Command Squad, would the Captain be able to take advantage of the the Command Squad Apothecary's Narthecium? According the standards we have presented, yes he would, because the Narthecium grants FNP to all models in the unit.

 Konrax wrote:
If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

It depends on how it is granted to the unit, now doesn't it? If the rule grants Pickle Squad Feel No Pain when targeted by Artillery, then the IC joined to the unit would receive Feel No Pain when the Pickle Squad is targetted by a Thunderfire Cannon.

If however, it is:
Special Rules:
* Feel No Pain (Pickle Squad)

Then, no, it wouldn't any more than a Combined Arms Necron Overlord gaining Relentless by joining a Reclamation Legion Immortals Squad.

 Konrax wrote:
If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

The standards used for "Feel No Pain" are completely different from the standards used in either "Stubborn", "Shock Deployment", "First the Fire, Then the Blade", "Suppressing Fusillade", or "Leave No Survivors".


Our position:
1) Independent Characters do not normally share Special Rules with or from the units they join. - Listed in the Special Rules section at the beginning under "What Rules Do I Have?", as well as the Special Rules section of Independent Characters. Note, this applies to ANY model. Codex Techmarines do not give Independent Character benefits or rule to the Servitors.

2) Independent Characters count as part of the unit they join for all rules purposes. - No, this does not mean they count as if they were a part of the datasheet(s) that the joined unit was purchased under. It just means that anything that happens to the unit, or any rules that benefit the unit during play, also affect and carry the joined IC along with it until they are separated.

3) Possession of a rule is not required in every case, some rules will specifically affect or benefit the unit as a whole. - Stubborn is used as the example and the standard in the Independent Character Rule for this. Stubborn does not grant its models any benefits whatsoever. All of its benefits are granted to the unit, nothing is mentioned of models or ICs, save as a trigger requirement.

4) Unit names are used to reference specific units. - There are three unit names involved in the Skyhammer Formation. All 6-10 units (6 originally purchased + 4 possible Combat Squads) possess all four of the rules, but only certain units are meant to take advantage of them. Nothing in this situation indicates that calling a unit by name ignores the Independent Character Rule mentioned in #2, so one cannot separate out the IC in these cases.

So, what we get in counter-argument is:
1) The rule needs to be on the model's datasheet in every case. - Looking for Reference to counter IC's rules which state they can if they specify like Stubborn.

2) The Skyhammer rules are only referring to datasheets not units. (Blacktoof) - So laughable, this should be used in cases of how not to debate. Units are put in Deep Strike Reserves. Units Deep Strike. Units Jump. Units Charge. Units target other units. Units roll To-Hit. Datasheets are blueprints and reference sheets, nothing more. Look up the rules on how to use them if you think otherwise.

3) You need at least one model in order for the unit to have it. - Actually part of our position, spiritually speaking, at any rate. Any model listed on a datasheet will possess the Special Rule (unless specifically noted like Eldar Exarchs or Codex Techmarines). There are only a few occasions where an IC will be "in the unit" and no other model in the unit does not have the Skyhammer Rules. At which point, the IC will no longer be "in the unit" at the start of the next Phase.

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

7) Formation datasheet special rules are not like unit datasheet special rules or Universal Special Rules and only affect the models purchased with the formation. - Looking for a reference that states this (would be nice for any, really) distinction between Formation Special Rules and any other Special Rules provided by any source.


Edit: TL;DR. In short, we have permission granted by all the "general" rules regarding the situation. At this point, the rules need to be specific in order to counter them. The Skyhammer Formation Special Rules only state unit-focused rules, and do not restrict them any other way.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Without that line it would not work.

No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

The IC doesn't get to charge because he recieves the rule FROM the unit, it gets to charge because it is part of the unit when the Unit (and not part of the unit, the entire unit) recieves permission to charge from Deep Strike. The Assaul Squad in question isn't actually allowed to charge from Deep Strike until it has already Deep Struck, since that is when the rule triggers.

So, after 3 more pages where the exact same conclusion, supported by the actual written rules , has been reached - can this be closed?

The no-IC-charging crowd cannot come up with asingle supprotable argument. none. Nothing. Nil. Every single argument has been ripped to shreds, repeatedly, from every angle and approach.

The only excuse to not allow it is purely one of balance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, after 3 more pages where the exact same conclusion, supported by the actual written rules , has been reached - can this be closed?

The no-IC-charging crowd cannot come up with asingle supprotable argument. none. Nothing. Nil. Every single argument has been ripped to shreds, repeatedly, from every angle and approach.

The only excuse to not allow it is purely one of balance.

This is one opinion. The other could be that the "I want my IC death star to assault on turn 1 crowd" is just to stubborn to listen.

By "too stubborn to listen" and "I want my IC death star... crowd" nonsense you fail on two accounts

1) You are insinuating bias on the part of those arguing the correct, follows every damned rule in the book crowd. I dont play codex space marines. Yet I still argue for this correct in every damned way RAW in every way possible stance

2) The "too stubborn" lot are rightfully sure of their point, as it has been proven every which way. Every half thought out argument against has been exposed, every attack on the position has been roundly rebuffed, and there is nothing left

If you dont want an IC deathstar to assault turn one, then houserule it away. Until then, as proven over and over and over and over again, this is utterly within the current ruleset.

There is no possible argument left to deny it bar "I dont like it"

oldzoggy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, after 3 more pages where the exact same conclusion, supported by the actual written rules , has been reached - can this be closed?

The no-IC-charging crowd cannot come up with asingle supprotable argument. none. Nothing. Nil. Every single argument has been ripped to shreds, repeatedly, from every angle and approach.

The only excuse to not allow it is purely one of balance.

This is one opinion. The other could be that the "I want my IC death star to assault on turn 1 crowd" is just to stubborn to listen.

We would listen if your side offered any actual arguments either for your stance or against ours and not single one has been offered. Do you any to offer?

Those arguing that the rules are correct are not necessarily intending on using the Skyhammer at all let alone with characters attached I know I'm not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
By "too stubborn to listen" and "I want my IC death star... crowd" nonsense you fail on two accounts

1) You are insinuating bias on the part of those arguing the correct, follows every damned rule in the book crowd. I dont play codex space marines. Yet I still argue for this correct in every damned way RAW in every way possible stance

2) The "too stubborn" lot are rightfully sure of their point, as it has been proven every which way. Every half thought out argument against has been exposed, every attack on the position has been roundly rebuffed, and there is nothing left

If you dont want an IC deathstar to assault turn one, then houserule it away. Until then, as proven over and over and over and over again, this is utterly within the current ruleset.

There is no possible argument left to deny it bar "I dont like it"

the rule has yet to be proven it is an unit rule.

Considering warhammer world, and every major tournament has ruled that an IC cannot join and benefit from these rules, I am 100% certain your opinion about being in the majority is incorrect.

You are also obviously wrong in that there is no RAW saying the rules benefit the unit, stating so is a fabrication.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules.

Proof, proof, you need proof. Not to mention, completely nonsensical. Where does it say that the unit purchased from the datasheet drops its name from purchase point to deployment?

blaktoof wrote:
That you even admit this and point it out when you say:

Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit"

And then go on to say the opposite is utterly baffling.

That's because you are ignoring the context for some bizarre reason I cannot understand. "Deathmarks" is the name of both unit and model. It is up at the top which the Datasheet Legend states as Unit Name and says, "Deathmarks". "Deathmark is also the name of model as listed in the profile. "Deathmark" is also listed in Unit Composition where it states "5 Deathmarks".

blaktoof wrote:
Yes Deathmarks in this unit references models bought from the deathmark datasheet with the unit name "deathmarks". That you understand the unit name is not the same as unit Here is good...but then you go on and say the opposite about assault squads?

You are confusing two different concepts at this point. Unit and Model. The Deathmark unit starts with 5 Deathmark models. The Deathmark unit can then add 5 more Deathmark models. The datasheet does not tell you to purchase 5 Deathmark "units" for every Datasheet, after all. Nor is it telling you that the "units in this unit" are capable of Wounding on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves.


Now, using the Datasheet Legend provided by Codex: Adeptus Astartes Ultra Space Marines which states that the #4 position is "4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.", I will point out in bold red every mention of unit or a unit in the Skyhammer Formation Rules that affect the possessing unit and thus affect a joined IC. Note, mention of units that are the targets of the affect, but not possessing them, will not be marked.
Formation:
2 Assault Squads
2 Devastator Squads

Restrictions:
Each Devastator Squad must take a Drop pod as a Dedicated Transport. Each Assault Squad must be equipped with jump packs.

Special Rules:

Spoiler:

Shock Deployment: All units in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in Deep Strike Reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this Formation will arrive during your first or second turn. The entire Skyhammer Annihilation Force automatically arrives on the turn you chose - no Reserve Rolls are required. Ignore this Formation's Drop Pods for the purposes of the Drop Pod Assault Rule.

Spoiler:

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

Spoiler:

Suppressing Fusillade: A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator Squad in the Shooting Phase must take a Morale test at the end of the phase on 3D6, regardless of how many casualties were infliected. If the test is failed, the enemy unit does not Fall Back, but must immediately Go to Ground. If the test is passed, the enemy unit is unable to fire Overwatch for the rest of the turn.

Spoiler:

Leave No Survivors: Assault Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force can use their jump packs in both the Movement Phase and the Assault Phase. If an Assault Squads from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force charges a unit that has Gone to Ground as a result of the Suppressing Fusillade special rule, that Assault Squads can re-roll failed To Hit and To Wound rolls in the ensuing Assault phase.

Your post does an excellent job of showing how they are not unit rules. Thank you for highlighting the special rules for skyhammer.

Shock Deployment shows a rule that specifies it affects 'units' This rule is an unit rule and a joined IC would benefit by the RAW

First the fire, then the blade- you obviously did not highlight the word 'unit' anywhere, as it is not an unit rule.

Suppressing fusillade- you obviously did not highlight the word unit anywhere, because the only mention of unit here is in reference to enemy units.

Leave no survivors- again no highlighting of the word units here other than enemy unit, because the rule does not specify in the Rules As Written that it is an unit rule by saying the unit benefits in any way.

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits.

That those selections for the formation are units in their own right does not change the rules above to unit rules, the rules above limit the rules to affecting the formation selections only because it calls out "assault squads" and "devestator squads" when it could say "units" or "assault squad units" or "On the turn they arrive from deep strike, any units of devastator squads in the skyhammer annihilation force have the..." which obviously as you have shown, it does none of those nor any thing of the sort where the rule is described as benefiting the unit.

and to the very very smart people who have posted in this thread that "devastator squads" don't exist because you can't charge with a devastator squad etc. tell me, HOW DO YOU SELECT THE MODELS FOR THE FORMATION IF THEY DON"T EXIST WHEN THE FORMATION SPELLS OUT:
2 Devastator Squads
2 Assault Squads

thanks for taking the time to show that.

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

These rules are not written down directly but all special rules, all wargear and all usr in all codexes and the rulebook follow these rules. There is nothing in the game outside secondary sources (who are known for poorly written rules sections) that doesn't follow these rules and doesn't make it clear that all models in the unit do get it. This convinces me that is it not possible in RAI.

One could argue that there is no rule written that they don't get it. But this is not the strongest argument at all. Since you could just as well argue that the data sheet is just poorly written as are more external data sheets.

Those arguing that the rules are correct are not necessarily intending on using the Skyhammer at all let alone with characters attached I know I'm not.

This is about more then just this formation since the ruling here might also affect other detachments and formations that give units special rules.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
By "too stubborn to listen" and "I want my IC death star... crowd" nonsense you fail on two accounts

1) You are insinuating bias on the part of those arguing the correct, follows every damned rule in the book crowd. I dont play codex space marines. Yet I still argue for this correct in every damned way RAW in every way possible stance

2) The "too stubborn" lot are rightfully sure of their point, as it has been proven every which way. Every half thought out argument against has been exposed, every attack on the position has been roundly rebuffed, and there is nothing left

If you dont want an IC deathstar to assault turn one, then houserule it away. Until then, as proven over and over and over and over again, this is utterly within the current ruleset.

There is no possible argument left to deny it bar "I dont like it"

the rule has yet to be proven it is an unit rule.

Considering warhammer world, and every major tournament has ruled that an IC cannot join and benefit from these rules, I am 100% certain your opinion about being in the majority is incorrect.

You are also obviously wrong in that there is no RAW saying the rules benefit the unit, stating so is a fabrication.

Apart from when it has been.

Your dismisssal of it, or ignorance of this proof, isnt "our" problem

It is a rule applied to the unit with name "assault squad". The unit remains the unit "Assault squad" regardless of who joins.

Keep kicking that horse will ya?

The WHW events team have no knowledge on rules. None. I know a fair few of them and they are there purely to have people have fun . ITC have made that rule for balance, same as their other "!FAQ" on e..g invisibility which is purely there to comp the event. As is their right. To lazily state this has anything to do with the real rules is, well, typical.

Also, where in my quote have I mentioned "majority"? I didnt. Another failing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
By "too stubborn to listen" and "I want my IC death star... crowd" nonsense you fail on two accounts

1) You are insinuating bias on the part of those arguing the correct, follows every damned rule in the book crowd. I dont play codex space marines. Yet I still argue for this correct in every damned way RAW in every way possible stance

2) The "too stubborn" lot are rightfully sure of their point, as it has been proven every which way. Every half thought out argument against has been exposed, every attack on the position has been roundly rebuffed, and there is nothing left

If you dont want an IC deathstar to assault turn one, then houserule it away. Until then, as proven over and over and over and over again, this is utterly within the current ruleset.

There is no possible argument left to deny it bar "I dont like it"

the rule has yet to be proven it is an unit rule.

Considering warhammer world, and every major tournament has ruled that an IC cannot join and benefit from these rules, I am 100% certain your opinion about being in the majority is incorrect.

You are also obviously wrong in that there is no RAW saying the rules benefit the unit, stating so is a fabrication.

Apart from when it has been.

Your dismisssal of it, or ignorance of this proof, isnt "our" problem

It is a rule applied to the unit with name "assault squad". The unit remains the unit "Assault squad" regardless of who joins.

Keep kicking that horse will ya?

The WHW events team have no knowledge on rules. None. I know a fair few of them and they are there purely to have people have fun . ITC have made that rule for balance, same as their other "!FAQ" on e..g invisibility which is purely there to comp the event. As is their right. To lazily state this has anything to do with the real rules is, well, typical.

Also, where in my quote have I mentioned "majority"? I didnt. Another failing.

ggest
its amazing how high your post count gets without ever referencing rules.

as always.

If you have some recorded minutes on discussions that happened at ITC, Nova, every major event when it came to the rules for skyhammer formation you could post them, until then your personal conjecture about why all these events have ruled this way is just your personal conjecture. Given that many major events do not see eye to eye on certain balance issues and they all ruled this way it is within the realm of possibility the ruling was to clarify to certain players that without the required statement of the rule benefiting the unit, which is required to grant permission to benefit an unit, and is also explicitly required to be written into the rule to benefit an IC as per the rules on ICs and special rules of units and benefiting each other under the section for ICs- in that the rules for skyhammer in no way support them benefiting the unit as written. It could have been done to clarify the langauge of the rules shows them benefiting the specific datasheets in the formation since the rules clearly state "devastator squad" and "assault squad" which are the units listed in the formation requirements, or it could be simply for balance as you suggest. You have your opinion on what it is, and much like your statements on most rules calls that you make that is just your opinion- without anything else to support it.

When you can quote where it states it benefits the unit, which is required by the rules for ICs to benefit from the rule, please do so.

It is not required to state that.

the unit gains the ability to charge. the IC is a normal member of the unit. Please find where the IC is not a normal member of the unit. Page and graph

The rules have been referenced. There is no need to repeat them purely for the beneifit of a single poster who cannot be bothered to check.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is not required to state that.

the unit gains the ability to charge. the IC is a normal member of the unit. Please find where the IC is not a normal member of the unit. Page and graph

The rules have been referenced. There is no need to repeat them purely for the beneifit of a single poster who cannot be bothered to check.

and again ignorance.

please quote where the UNIT gains the ability to charge in the specific rule.

I suggest you re-read the rules on ICs where it specifically states it IS required to state the rule benefits the unit if at least one model has it, etc under "Independent characters joined to units with different special rules"

without the rule specifically saying it benefits the unit in writing using the word "unit" and somehow stating within the rule it carries over to the entire unit if some model has it as per stubbon/stealth/etc , then the IC cannot benefit as the rules as written state such.

one of the skyhammer rules does this, the others do not.

by the RAW one of the rules could benefit an IC, none of the others can as written.

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

oldzoggy wrote:

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

These rules are not written down directly but all special rules, all wargear and all usr in all codexes and the rulebook follow these rules. There is nothing in the game outside secondary sources (who are known for poorly written rules sections) that doesn't follow these rules and doesn't make it clear that all models in the unit do get it. This convinces me that is it not possible in RAI.

One could argue that there is no rule written that they don't get it. But this is not the strongest argument at all. Since you could just as well argue that the data sheet is just poorly written as are more external data sheets.

Those arguing that the rules are correct are not necessarily intending on using the Skyhammer at all let alone with characters attached I know I'm not.

This is about more then just this formation since the ruling here might also affect other detachments and formations that give units special rules.

So basically you're conceding those rules don't exist but we are expected to know them and follow them because reasons... Do you have anything that states those rules exist? Anything at all?

 FlingitNow wrote:

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.

and the IC requires the special rule to say it benefits the unit, which these rules do not.

the name of something is not the same as an unit on the table top.

and saying Devastator Squad = Unit, therefore joined IC is a member of the unit is the same as saying the IC is from that datasheet and is part of the skyhammer formation because at this point you are claiming the IC is part of that datasheet, which you know is blatantly false because you know it violates the rule of units only belonging to one formation/detachment, therefore not only is there no written language in any GW book anywhere saying the name of a datasheet, or the unit name of the datasheet, is the same as an unit- but it is shown using the same bad logic that it is violates the rules of the game in other areas as well.

so basically you are conceding that you are incorrect because the rules where the unit name of a datasheet = an unit on the tabletop do not exist in writing anywhere and we should just ignore the entire rules section of ICs and joining units with different special rules and these special rules in no where in their language say they benefit the unit, but you think we are expected to know them and follow them because reasons.. Do you have anything that states those rules exist? Anything at all?

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.

and the IC requires the special rule to say it benefits the unit, which these rules do not.

the name of something is not the same as an unit on the table top.

and saying Devastator Squad = Unit, therefore joined IC is a member of the unit is the same as saying the IC is from that datasheet and is part of the skyhammer formation because at this point you are claiming the IC is part of that datasheet, which you know is blatantly false because you know it violates the rule of units only belonging to one formation/detachment, therefore not only is there no written language in any GW book anywhere saying the name of a datasheet, or the unit name of the datasheet, is the same as an unit- but it is shown using the same bad logic that it is violates the rules of the game in other areas as well.

Nope I never said IC was on the datasheet or in the formation. Formation rules say army list entries and units are the same thing (3rd sentence of Formation rules). Page 114 SM codex says point 3 is the UNIT name. Same page under formations it states they list army list entries which are UNIT names...

RAW Assault Squad and Devastator Squads are references to UNITS.

Also if the rule didn't apply to a unit how would the Assault Squad ever use it to charge? As charges are declared by, guess what, UNITS.

This argument is beyond pointless at this stage. The same argument has occurred at least 4 times on this forum and several times on other forums such as warseer and b&c and it is literally the same 3-4 people arguing until the thread is locked that their opinion is correct when faced with the vast majority of the forums arguing they are wrong. Many rules from the brb and examples have been provided and their best defense of their opinion is adding words to special rules that do not exist. Such as stating unit when it is never stated in the command benefit for skyhammer or flat out ignoring rules that don't fall in line with their opinion such as the ic rules or the formation rules which literally call out command benefits as rules based on MODELS in a detachment. At this point no one plays the way they want, not any of the major tournaments nor warhammer world and none of them consider this a change in rules. So the only point of this argument at this point is to argue with that guy who plays at your local club and looks for anyway to twist rules,

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.

and the IC requires the special rule to say it benefits the unit, which these rules do not.

the name of something is not the same as an unit on the table top.

and saying Devastator Squad = Unit, therefore joined IC is a member of the unit is the same as saying the IC is from that datasheet and is part of the skyhammer formation because at this point you are claiming the IC is part of that datasheet, which you know is blatantly false because you know it violates the rule of units only belonging to one formation/detachment, therefore not only is there no written language in any GW book anywhere saying the name of a datasheet, or the unit name of the datasheet, is the same as an unit- but it is shown using the same bad logic that it is violates the rules of the game in other areas as well.

Nope I never said IC was on the datasheet or in the formation. Formation rules say army list entries and units are the same thing (3rd sentence of Formation rules). Page 114 SM codex says point 3 is the UNIT name. Same page under formations it states they list army list entries which are UNIT names...

RAW Assault Squad and Devastator Squads are references to UNITS.

Also if the rule didn't apply to a unit how would the Assault Squad ever use it to charge? As charges are declared by, guess what, UNITS.

so you claim that an "Assault Squad" the name of a datasheet from space marines codex, which fulfills part of the requirements for the formation "skyhammer" is referencing the rules word unit instead of the name of the unit you can purchase from the datasheet "assault squad" Yes you purchase a specific unit ENTRY, not unit from a datasheet. Your IC you are attaching is not form that data sheet or unit entry, the rule you are saying the IC benefits from as an UNIT rule despite there rule never ever stating it benefits the unit anywhere in its rule. You therefore claim the name of the unit ENTRY for the datasheet = unit because no reason given, with no RAW support and just you saying "the rules say its so".

Here is the problem, you are saying that the IC is part of that datasheet if you claim:
1- The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes [There is a RAW statement for this]
2- The unit ENTRY for a datasheet is the same as an unit on the tabletop [there is no RAW statement for this]
3- Then if the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes, and the unit is the same as the name, you are absolutely RAW claiming the IC is coming from that unit ENTRY- and in this case you are claiming the IC is from the skyhammer annhilation force when attached. Which is 100% against the rules.

4- You are still ignoring the IC rules require the rule to specifically state the rule benefits the UNIT, with the word UNIT. [there is a RAW statement this is required]

so despite what you claim as rules as written, you cannot support it in any way, and your statement about:

Also if the rule didn't apply to a unit how would the Assault Squad ever use it to charge? As charges are declared by, guess what, UNITS.

greatly demonstrates that you do not understand that you can buy an unit from a datasheet, and put that unit on the table top. The unit on the tabletop currently comes from 1 datasheet in 1 formation/detachment. If you attach an IC to it, the IC is part of the unit, HOWEVER the IC is not part of that "Assault squad" which is the unit assigned to that datasheet before deployment during army selection PRIOR to when the IC can be attached. The assault squad purchased for the formation is given permission to charge because it is the assault squad referenced in the rule from the formation rules by the written rules:

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

So great the unit can declare a charge, but the IC is not from the assault squad for that formation so the unit cannot charge the turn it DSes because the IC has no rule allowing it to benefit by the rules as written, so unless the IC has its own rule allowing it to assault when DSing the IC has no permission to do so. My advice would be not to attach an IC to the unit because it would restrict your ability to use the special rule. Like many other rules in the game.

so yeah the assault squad from the formation can go crazy, but the IC not from the formation cannot. as the rule does not benefit UNITS in its writing which is REQUIRED in the RAW for ICs joined to units with different special rules the IC does not benefit because the IC is not from the assault squad purchased for that formation.

oldzoggy wrote:

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

What rules? Please clarify where they rules are? References have been requested, yet no one has actually provided them. That is why I added the "Looking for a Reference" tag to the end.

oldzoggy wrote:These rules are not written down directly but all special rules, all wargear and all usr in all codexes and the rulebook follow these rules. There is nothing in the game outside secondary sources (who are known for poorly written rules sections) that doesn't follow these rules and doesn't make it clear that all models in the unit do get it. This convinces me that is it not possible in RAI.

Okay, so we're the bad guys because we're not using Rules NOT Written? Whereas, I at least referenced every single rule used to support our position.

And there are plenty of cases like this one where an IC has been allowed to benefit from a Detachment's Special Rules by being attached to a unit with the rule. Or should we reference how Combined Arms Objective Secured has been treated?

oldzoggy wrote:One could argue that there is no rule written that they don't get it. But this is not the strongest argument at all. Since you could just as well argue that the data sheet is just poorly written as are more external data sheets.

Poor argument for Rules As Written. We have already demonstrated a general permission exists. Where general permission exists, a specific restriction must be in place to to counter it. A unit may always Charge if it is in range. Unless of course it just Infiltrated, Scouted, came in from Reserves, fired a Weapon that prevents Charging, Deep Striked, etc.

oldzoggy wrote:

Those arguing that the rules are correct are not necessarily intending on using the Skyhammer at all let alone with characters attached I know I'm not.

This is about more then just this formation since the ruling here might also affect other detachments and formations that give units special rules.

Indeed it is. But not all Formation Special Rules are the same, either, just as not all Universal Special Rules are the same.

Take for example, the Necron Destroyer Cult Formation has a rule:
This is an interesting case, because it comes with 1 IC (Destroyer Lord) and 3 units (Destroyers). If a Destroyer Lord from a Combined Arms Detachment joins one of the Destroyer Squads, he will benefit from Extermination Protocols, since he is now part of the unit and the unit benefits. If the Destroyer Lord from this Formation joins a unit of Deathmarks, though, none would benefit, including the Destroyer Lord, since the UNIT is not from the Formation and only the units benefit.

In this case, in order for the Destroyer Lord to pass on the benefit of Extermination Protocols it would have to state "A unit with at least one model with this Special Rule" or similar.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.

and the IC requires the special rule to say it benefits the unit, which these rules do not.

Evidence or reference, pray tell? Just because the word "unit" is not always used is insufficient to reject it when a UNIT NAME is being used. This is a standard English convention.

blaktoof wrote:the name of something is not the same as an unit on the table top.

and saying Devastator Squad = Unit, therefore joined IC is a member of the unit is the same as saying the IC is from that datasheet and is part of the skyhammer formation because at this point you are claiming the IC is part of that datasheet, which you know is blatantly false because you know it violates the rule of units only belonging to one formation/detachment, therefore not only is there no written language in any GW book anywhere saying the name of a datasheet, or the unit name of the datasheet, is the same as an unit- but it is shown using the same bad logic that it is violates the rules of the game in other areas as well.

So, a UNIT NAME isn't the name of the unit on the table? Considering that this is standard English to do this, where do the rules tell you that when the rules state a unit's name, it is not referencing a unit that carries that name? You have yet to reference this as a fact as yet.

blaktoof wrote:so basically you are conceding that you are incorrect because the rules where the unit name of a datasheet = an unit on the tabletop do not exist in writing anywhere and we should just ignore the entire rules section of ICs and joining units with different special rules and these special rules in no where in their language say they benefit the unit, but you think we are expected to know them and follow them because reasons.. Do you have anything that states those rules exist? Anything at all?

They exist in standard English convention. Do you think when I say, "Blacktoof" I am referencing just your avatar or post engine? No, I am referencing a poster who is going by that name.

And all through this since my last response, no one counter-arguing has presented a referenced rule to support their claim. I have seen numerous statements that have not been supported, yet we are to take as "standard convention" because you say so.

blaktoof wrote:
so you claim that an "Assault Squad" the name of a datasheet from space marines codex, which fulfills part of the requirements for the formation "skyhammer" is referencing the rules word unit instead of the name of the unit you can purchase from the datasheet "assault squad" Yes you purchase a specific unit ENTRY, not unit from a datasheet. Your IC you are attaching is not form that data sheet or unit entry, the rule you are saying the IC benefits from as an UNIT rule despite there rule never ever stating it benefits the unit anywhere in its rule. You therefore claim the name of the unit ENTRY for the datasheet = unit because no reason given, with no RAW support and just you saying "the rules say its so".

As has been referenced many times up to this point, Blacktoof, the Datasheet Legend does not tell us where the name of the datasheet is. The only "name" listed on the legend is "Unit Name". When compared to the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad datasheets, the position filled by "Assault Squad" and "Devastator Squad" are referred to as "Unit Names" by the same legend.

And ICs join Units, not datasheets.

blaktoof wrote:
Here is the problem, you are saying that the IC is part of that datasheet if you claim:
1- The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes [There is a RAW statement for this]

No, there isn't. There is no rule that when an IC joins a unit, it joins the datasheet. This is an assumption produced by your bass-ackwards interpretation of not reading a legend properly.

blaktoof wrote:
2- The unit ENTRY for a datasheet is the same as an unit on the tabletop [there is no RAW statement for this]

Correct that there is no rule for it, and we have never stated as such, you are placing a crazy assumption of our position based on your inability to understand key paradigms. Especially since they do not carry unit entries in datasheets, they carry unit profiles. The unit datasheet carries the blueprint and references for the unit created from it. The Empire State Building Blueprint is the building plans for how the Empire State Building. Can I enter the blueprints? Can I build the blueprints? No, of course not. What is the name of the building called that these blueprints create? The Empire State Building. According to you, though, this building would only be referenced by some generic name and could never be referred to the name on its blueprints.

blaktoof wrote:
3- Then if the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes, and the unit is the same as the name, you are absolutely RAW claiming the IC is coming from that unit ENTRY- and in this case you are claiming the IC is from the skyhammer annhilation force when attached. Which is 100% against the rules.

No, we are not stating this. A unit entry nor a datasheet are placed in Deep Strike Reserves. Unit Entires and Datasheets do not Charge. Unit Entries and datasheets do not target other units to shoot at them. Unit Entries and datasheets do not Charge units.

The name of the unit is the name provided by the datasheet. It does not mean that any IC that joins the unit joins the datasheet. Nor have we ever stated nor implied as such. They are joined in receiving or acting according to the benefits, deficits, and actions of the unit they join.

blaktoof wrote:
4- You are still ignoring the IC rules require the rule to specifically state the rule benefits the UNIT, with the word UNIT. [there is a RAW statement this is required]

There is no RAW statement that this is required since the rule that is used as an example and benchmark does not provide that level of specificity. Nor do the rules that reference this example rule state exactly what in Stubborn are the key guidelines.

blaktoof wrote:
so despite what you claim as rules as written, you cannot support it in any way, and your statement about:

Also if the rule didn't apply to a unit how would the Assault Squad ever use it to charge? As charges are declared by, guess what, UNITS.

greatly demonstrates that you do not understand that you can buy an unit from a datasheet, and put that unit on the table top. The unit on the tabletop currently comes from 1 datasheet in 1 formation/detachment. If you attach an IC to it, the IC is part of the unit, HOWEVER the IC is not part of that "Assault squad" which is the unit assigned to that datasheet before deployment during army selection PRIOR to when the IC can be attached. The assault squad purchased for the formation is given permission to charge because it is the assault squad referenced in the rule from the formation rules by the written rules:

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

So great the unit can declare a charge, but the IC is not from the assault squad for that formation so the unit cannot charge the turn it DSes because the IC has no rule allowing it to benefit by the rules as written, so unless the IC has its own rule allowing it to assault when DSing the IC has no permission to do so. My advice would be not to attach an IC to the unit because it would restrict your ability to use the special rule. Like many other rules in the game.

so yeah the assault squad from the formation can go crazy, but the IC not from the formation cannot. as the rule does not benefit UNITS in its writing which is REQUIRED in the RAW for ICs joined to units with different special rules the IC does not benefit because the IC is not from the assault squad purchased for that formation.

You have yet to demonstrate wherein the rules that when a unit is referenced by name that it only refers to the models purchased in the datasheet. If you are so certain, and we've asked SO many times up to this point across several threads, you MUST have at least a reference handy to support your claim. So, where is it?

Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

What rules? Please clarify where they rules are? References have been requested, yet no one has actually provided them. That is why I added the "Looking for a Reference" tag to the end.

oldzoggy wrote:These rules are not written down directly but all special rules, all wargear and all usr in all codexes and the rulebook follow these rules. There is nothing in the game outside secondary sources (who are known for poorly written rules sections) that doesn't follow these rules and doesn't make it clear that all models in the unit do get it. This convinces me that is it not possible in RAI.

Okay, so we're the bad guys because we're not using Rules NOT Written? Whereas, I at least referenced every single rule used to support our position.

And there are plenty of cases like this one where an IC has been allowed to benefit from a Detachment's Special Rules by being attached to a unit with the rule. Or should we reference how Combined Arms Objective Secured has been treated?

oldzoggy wrote:One could argue that there is no rule written that they don't get it. But this is not the strongest argument at all. Since you could just as well argue that the data sheet is just poorly written as are more external data sheets.

Poor argument for Rules As Written. We have already demonstrated a general permission exists. Where general permission exists, a specific restriction must be in place to to counter it. A unit may always Charge if it is in range. Unless of course it just Infiltrated, Scouted, came in from Reserves, fired a Weapon that prevents Charging, Deep Striked, etc.

oldzoggy wrote:

Those arguing that the rules are correct are not necessarily intending on using the Skyhammer at all let alone with characters attached I know I'm not.

This is about more then just this formation since the ruling here might also affect other detachments and formations that give units special rules.

Indeed it is. But not all Formation Special Rules are the same, either, just as not all Universal Special Rules are the same.

Take for example, the Necron Destroyer Cult Formation has a rule:

Spoiler:

Extermination Protocols: All units in this Formation re-roll failed To Wound rolls and Armour Penetration rolls in the Shooting phase.

This is an interesting case, because it comes with 1 IC (Destroyer Lord) and 3 units (Destroyers). If a Destroyer Lord from a Combined Arms Detachment joins one of the Destroyer Squads, he will benefit from Extermination Protocols, since he is now part of the unit and the unit benefits. If the Destroyer Lord from this Formation joins a unit of Deathmarks, though, none would benefit, including the Destroyer Lord, since the UNIT is not from the Formation and only the units benefit.

In this case, in order for the Destroyer Lord to pass on the benefit of Extermination Protocols it would have to state "A unit with at least one model with this Special Rule" or similar.

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You did a great job of Highlighting Devastator Squad, and Assault Squad. Which when you look at the datasheets required for the Formation: 2 Assault Squads 
2 Devastator Squads, shows you who benefits. 

Correct the units known as the Assault Squad and Devastator Squad are what benefits. Note how formation rules tell it is units that are listed and the datasheet says Assault Squad is the unit name... The unit the IC is considered part of for all rules purposes.

and the IC requires the special rule to say it benefits the unit, which these rules do not.

Evidence or reference, pray tell? Just because the word "unit" is not always used is insufficient to reject it when a UNIT NAME is being used. This is a standard English convention.

blaktoof wrote:the name of something is not the same as an unit on the table top.

and saying Devastator Squad = Unit, therefore joined IC is a member of the unit is the same as saying the IC is from that datasheet and is part of the skyhammer formation because at this point you are claiming the IC is part of that datasheet, which you know is blatantly false because you know it violates the rule of units only belonging to one formation/detachment, therefore not only is there no written language in any GW book anywhere saying the name of a datasheet, or the unit name of the datasheet, is the same as an unit- but it is shown using the same bad logic that it is violates the rules of the game in other areas as well.

So, a UNIT NAME isn't the name of the unit on the table? Considering that this is standard English to do this, where do the rules tell you that when the rules state a unit's name, it is not referencing a unit that carries that name? You have yet to reference this as a fact as yet.

blaktoof wrote:so basically you are conceding that you are incorrect because the rules where the unit name of a datasheet = an unit on the tabletop do not exist in writing anywhere and we should just ignore the entire rules section of ICs and joining units with different special rules and these special rules in no where in their language say they benefit the unit, but you think we are expected to know them and follow them because reasons.. Do you have anything that states those rules exist? Anything at all?

They exist in standard English convention. Do you think when I say, "Blacktoof" I am referencing just your avatar or post engine? No, I am referencing a poster who is going by that name.

And all through this since my last response, no one counter-arguing has presented a referenced rule to support their claim. I have seen numerous statements that have not been supported, yet we are to take as "standard convention" because you say so.

Saying "Blaktoof" Is not the same as saying "poster" because poster may be Caristoph. No the name of an Unit purchased from a datasheet is not always the same as an unit on the tabletop. The two are not interchangeable and there are no rules stating they are.

If I joined a Big Mek to a Warboss, is the Big Mek a Warboss? You are claiming it is. If Warboss is the unit entry name of a datasheet, and you claim that means Warboss name = Unit. then if I joined a Big Mek to a Warboss the Big Mek is part of the unit for all purposes, and you claim this means the "Bigmek" is now "Warboss" because it counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes and you claim the unit is the same as the unit entry name of the datasheet. Just as an IC is "Assault Squad" for Skyhammer by your claim. Yes the are members of the unit, no they are not from the unit entry datasheet, and no the name of the unit entry for a datasheet is not the same as the word unit for the rules. This is obviously completely wrong in all ways.

re-read the rules for ICs joining units and special rules, note it states the rule has to specifically say it benefits the unit if at least one model has it. The rules in skyhammer, only one does this.

gungo wrote:
This argument is beyond pointless at this stage. The same argument has occurred at least 4 times on this forum and several times on other forums such as warseer and b&c and it is literally the same 3-4 people arguing until the thread is locked that their opinion is correct when faced with the vast majority of the forums arguing they are wrong. Many rules from the brb and examples have been provided and their best defense of their opinion is adding words to special rules that do not exist. Such as stating unit when it is never stated in the command benefit for skyhammer or flat out ignoring rules that don't fall in line with their opinion such as the ic rules or the formation rules which literally call out command benefits as rules based on MODELS in a detachment. At this point no one plays the way they want, not any of the major tournaments nor warhammer world and none of them consider this a change in rules. So the only point of this argument at this point is to argue with that guy who plays at your local club and looks for anyway to twist rules,

The argument whether or not "Assault Squad" refers to the unit or the models of the unit or the models of the unit as purchased from the datasheet or even the datasheet Assault Squad is pretty stupid. It's arguing with semantics and comparing apples (rules that reference a bunch of units or are generic USR) and oranges (A rule that is specific to one of 2 unit types in a formation, the Assault Squads - saying "units aside from the Dev Squads" would've been really weird), and quite frankly will never result in a solution.

But: I've not read a reference to the Formation rules yet in this thread (probably missed it), and based on those I can understand where you (gungo specifically, not the nay-sayers in general) are coming from - let me quote the relevant lines:

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

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

If a Detachment or Force Organisation Chart does not list any Command Benefits then the units that make it up receive no additional benefits.

CAD Command Benefits
Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

It keeps using "units", but the first line of the detailled rules says "some or all of the models" - just to continue from there with talking about units. This is just another example of how badly written the rules are, sadly. Based on that chapter I'd say the RAW is kinda broken (since the rule and example itself uses "units" and "models" interchangeable apparently, which it simply isn't) and the RAI was to only benefit the models - therefore excluding any attached ICs.

So thanks for pointing out that rule gungo, if I ever use the Skyhammer I'll not attach any ICs to it.


*edit* added the CAD Command benefits as well

blaktoof wrote:
Saying "Blaktoof" Is not the same as saying "poster" because poster may be Charistoph. No the name of an Unit purchased from a datasheet is not always the same as an unit on the tabletop. The two are not interchangeable and there are no rules stating they are.

"Blacktoof" and "Charistoph" are the names of specific posters. "Assault Squad" and "Devastator Squad" are the names of specific units. "Skyhammer Annihilation Force Formation" is a specific Formation. Can you demonstrate where in the rules it states the unit name changes when an IC joins it? You have yet to.

blaktoof wrote:
If I joined a Big Mek to a Warboss, is the Big Mek a Warboss? You are claiming it is. If Warboss is the unit entry name of a datasheet, and you claim that means Warboss name = Unit. then if I joined a Big Mek to a Warboss the Big Mek is part of the unit for all purposes, and you claim this means the "Bigmek" is now "Warboss" because it counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes and you claim the unit is the same as the unit entry name of the datasheet. Just as an IC is "Assault Squad" for Skyhammer by your claim. Yes the are members of the unit, no they are not from the unit entry datasheet, and no the name of the unit entry for a datasheet is not the same as the word unit for the rules. This is obviously completely wrong in all ways.

We've been over this with Deathmarks. But here, let's try to clarify it for you, again. If you join a Big Mek to a Warboss, it does not become a Warboss any more than a Marine is an Assault Squad or Devastator Squad. It simply becomes a Big Mek MODEL in a Warboss UNIT. A Chaplain which joins a Crusader Squad doesn't become a Crusader Squad any more than the Sword Brother, Initiates or Neophytes in the Squad. But when actions are made by or against the unit, they are made by or against the Crusader Squad, of which a Chaplain is just one (temporary) model.

You need to get this confusion between models and units out of your head. There are no models called "Assault Squad" or "Devastator Squad". These are and can only be unit names.

blaktoof wrote:
re-read the rules for ICs joining units and special rules, note it states the rule has to specifically say it benefits the unit if at least one model has it. The rules in skyhammer, only one does this.

Right, it has to benefit the unit. And a unit name, by definition, references a unit. It doesn't say, "It must state that it generically refers to 'the unit' and not its unit name. It cannot reference the unit name".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
But: I've not read a reference to the Formation rules yet in this thread (probably missed it), and based on those I can understand where you (gungo specifically, not the nay-sayers in general) are coming from - let me quote the relevant lines:

I quoted the specific Skyhammer Formation Special Rules near the top of page 3, and they are easily googled under "Skyhammer Formation". But here you go:
Formation:
2 Assault Squads
2 Devastator Squads

Restrictions:
Each Devastator Squad must take a Drop pod as a Dedicated Transport. Each Assault Squad must be equipped with jump packs.

Special Rules:





It should also be pointed out that the Skyhammer Formation (and indeed, all formations) do not have Command Benefits, just Datasheet Special Rules. And regarding those: - from the Datasheets section of Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines.

I'm reminded of why arguing with blaktoof is fairly pointless.

Rules have been provided ad nauseum, yet they are roundly ignored.

The name of the unit, "assault squad" is indeed referencing the unit named "assault squad". This name never changes when an IC joins it, therefore the rule referencing the "assault squad" unit still applies

This is proven. Tournaments such as those using the itc rule pack are entirely free to knee jerk house rule for balance, but I really wish they would actually admit it. It makes it so much easier to rebut the tired presumption that just because one specific house has house ruled one direction, that it has any bearing on what the actual rules state.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm reminded of why arguing with blaktoof is fairly pointless.

Rules have been provided ad nauseum, yet they are roundly ignored.

The name of the unit, "assault squad" is indeed referencing the unit named "assault squad". This name never changes when an IC joins it, therefore the rule referencing the "assault squad" unit still applies

This is proven. Tournaments such as those using the itc rule pack are entirely free to knee jerk house rule for balance, but I really wish they would actually admit it. It makes it so much easier to rebut the tired presumption that just because one specific house has house ruled one direction, that it has any bearing on what the actual rules state.

I love how you snuck the word unit in there to make your stance look legitimate.

Well done, sir. Well done.

I love how you actually quoted rules somewhere and clarified the whole thing where there are no rules in 2/3 of the skyhammer rules that says they affect units.

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.

you very much showed in writing where it SPECIFIES that the rule in question affects the IC. Its very obvious when they say the unit benefits in the first rule the unit benefits, and then when they say the assault squad, see the assault squad requirement for the formation benefits. One is the unit entry purchased for a formation, that gives a command benefit that affects MODELS, yes models, that have said command benefit (first the fire then the blade) which models get this benefit? The ones from the assault squad and devestator squad. Is the IC from those? Never.

If only it stated in the rule itself that they confer to the IC.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

The unit does not have a different special rule when the IC joins. Have you even bothered to look at the timing of the rules quoted?

The IC is joined before they gain the rule. So, when the unit gains the rule, and the IC is a normal member of the unit, what rule do you utilise to deny the IC the rule? Page and graph please, the above quote does not cut it

You have been provided the rule proving that the name "assault squad" refenerences the unit

How about you put together one coherent argument, and go from there? Currently you're doing your usual scatter gun approach, where you quote respond but don't actually respond to the argument in the quote, and trying. A half dozen different approaches in the hope one of your half concocted arguments will ever stick

Unfortunately it's so transparently poor a tactic, it's not fooling anyone

So, instead of your usual scatter gun, unformatted and half complete arguments, just pick ONE topic and stick through it. When you're shown your error there, we can move to the next ill conceived argument, and finally show your error.

If you're willing to listen this time, of course.

blaktoof wrote:
I love how you snuck the word unit in there to make your stance look legitimate.

Well done, sir. Well done.

I love how you actually quoted rules somewhere and clarified the whole thing where there are no rules in 2/3 of the skyhammer rules that says they affect units.

Only if you believe that a UNIT name doesn't refer to a UNIT, which you unsupportedly do.

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.

you very much showed in writing where it SPECIFIES that the rule in question affects the IC. Its very obvious when they say the unit benefits in the first rule the unit benefits, and then when they say the assault squad, see the assault squad requirement for the formation benefits. One is the unit entry purchased for a formation, that gives a command benefit that affects MODELS, yes models, that have said command benefit (first the fire then the blade) which models get this benefit? The ones from the assault squad and devestator squad. Is the IC from those? Never.

If only it stated in the rule itself that they confer to the IC.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Formations do not give Command Benefits. They give Special Rules which are given to the units on the Datasheets. I just quoted that from the codex.

You still have yet to quote or reference that when a rule uses a unit's name, it is only referring to the original models on the Datasheets. You assert, but do not proove. Either provide a proper reference or quote, or demonstrate yourself a troll on this issue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit does not have a different special rule when the IC joins. Have you even bothered to look at the timing of the rules quoted?

The IC is joined before they gain the rule. So, when the unit gains the rule, and the IC is a normal member of the unit, what rule do you utilise to deny the IC the rule? Page and graph please, the above quote does not cut it

You have been provided the rule proving that the name "assault squad" refenerences the unit

How about you put together one coherent argument, and go from there? Currently you're doing your usual scatter gun approach, where you quote respond but don't actually respond to the argument in the quote, and trying. A half dozen different approaches in the hope one of your half concocted arguments will ever stick

Unfortunately it's so transparently poor a tactic, it's not fooling anyone

So, instead of your usual scatter gun, unformatted and half complete arguments, just pick ONE topic and stick through it. When you're shown your error there, we can move to the next ill conceived argument, and finally show your error.

If you're willing to listen this time, of course.

obvious troll post.

how about you quote a single rule...

try starting with where the IC has the first the fire then the blade rule, or where it SPECIFICALLY says in the rule the whole unit has it if any model has it as is required by the RAW, until then you are ignored for trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I love how you snuck the word unit in there to make your stance look legitimate.

Well done, sir. Well done.

I love how you actually quoted rules somewhere and clarified the whole thing where there are no rules in 2/3 of the skyhammer rules that says they affect units.

Only if you believe that a UNIT name doesn't refer to a UNIT, which you unsupportedly do.

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.

you very much showed in writing where it SPECIFIES that the rule in question affects the IC. Its very obvious when they say the unit benefits in the first rule the unit benefits, and then when they say the assault squad, see the assault squad requirement for the formation benefits. One is the unit entry purchased for a formation, that gives a command benefit that affects MODELS, yes models, that have said command benefit (first the fire then the blade) which models get this benefit? The ones from the assault squad and devestator squad. Is the IC from those? Never.

If only it stated in the rule itself that they confer to the IC.

Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character

Formations do not give Command Benefits. They give Special Rules which are given to the units on the Datasheets. I just quoted that from the codex.

You still have yet to quote or reference that when a rule uses a unit's name, it is only referring to the original models on the Datasheets. You assert, but do not proove. Either provide a proper reference or quote, or demonstrate yourself a troll on this issue.

you still have yet to show any rule that allows you to treat the name of an unit entry on the datasheet as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop. You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

you still have yet to show any rule that allows you to treat the name of an unit entry on the datasheet as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop. You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

So when they refer to something by a unit's name they are not refering to a unit in your mind?

The later part is a flat out lie. The IC rules saying nothing about an IC benefiting from special rules that target the unit. They only talk about how rules are conferred to the IC. In this case as explained to you many times the IC does not ever receive the special rule, nor is it conferred to him. He is effected by it because it targets the Assault Squad of which he is part.

blaktoof wrote:
you still have yet to show any rule that allows you to treat the name of an unit entry on the datasheet as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

You are correct. I have yet to show any rule that allows me to treat the name of a unit entry on the Datasheets as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

That's because I have not tried.

What I stated is the section of a datasheet listed by the datasheet legend as "unit name" is the name of the unit the datasheet refers to and is purchased by. And that when the Skyhammer rules refer to "Assault Squad" or "Devastator Squad" they are referring to units that carry those respective names as assigned by their datasheet.

What can you reference that says otherwise?

You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

The ICs benefit just like they do with Stubborn. They are part of the unit being affected. Stubborn doesn't say anything about ICs being affected, and yet, it is the example of how it works.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
you still have yet to show any rule that allows you to treat the name of an unit entry on the datasheet as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

You are correct. I have yet to show any rule that allows me to treat the name of a unit entry on the Datasheets as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

That's because I have not tried.

What I stated is the section of a datasheet listed by the datasheet legend as "unit name" is the name of the unit the datasheet refers to and is purchased by. And that when the Skyhammer rules refer to "Assault Squad" or "Devastator Squad" they are referring to units that carry those respective names as assigned by their datasheet.

What can you reference that says otherwise?

You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

The ICs benefit just like they do with Stubborn. They are part of the unit being affected. Stubborn doesn't say anything about ICs being affected, and yet, it is the example of how it works.

well on the same datasheet you see the entry for Assault Squad. When the rule for the formation says Assault Squad it means the models purchased assault squad for that formation. Not that the rule benefits a Unit, since it is not a rule that benefits an unit by the rules as written. If it were they would have written it as such.

And there is no need to make up a rule that the name of an unit is the same as saying unit for rules purposes.

blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

yeah I think you missed the discussion, because there is no RAW stating that the skyhammer rules other than the first are unit rules. No one is claiming the IC is not part of the unit it is attached to.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

yeah I think you missed the discussion, because there is no RAW stating that the skyhammer rules other than the first are unit rules. No one is claiming the IC is not part of the unit it is attached to.

So the unit is an "Assault Squad"?

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

Is this a joke?
An ork pain boy that joins a squad of stormboyz is not called a stormboy. It still is a painboy. However it is a "unit" that doesn't mean it becomes a stormboy squad nor does it become an inquisitor squad. It's just a unit. No name no title because the rules never state anywhere a character changes his title anywhere.

The other joke In this thread is claiming the itc is the only rule body that stated characters don't gain formations rules from skyhammer. Nearly every major tournament EtC, ITC, even warhammer world all stated this doesn't work. And the same 3-4 people on this thread brushed it all off that none of those people know the rules and only they are correct. Hence the pointlessness of arguing with these people. They are living in thoer own little bubble saying everyone else is wrong and they are right. You're never going to change thier mind nor does it matter because no one plays this way.

blaktoof wrote:well on the same datasheet you see the entry for Assault Squad. When the rule for the formation says Assault Squad it means the models purchased assault squad for that formation. Not that the rule benefits a Unit, since it is not a rule that benefits an unit by the rules as written. If it were they would have written it as such.

This is what it says at the beginning of the Datasheet legend for Codex Space Marines:
"Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each Army List Entry contains the following information:
1. Faction: ...
2. Battlefield Role: ...
3. Points Cost: ...
4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.
5. Unit Profile: This section will show the profiles of any models the unit can include.
6. Unit Type: ...
7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the
basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.
8. Wargear: ...
9. Warlord Traits: ..
10. Special Rules: ...
11. Chapter Relics: ...
12. Unit Description: ...
13. Options: ...
Formations
Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol. The rules for Formations can be found in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain."

Show me at which point it says anything to mean, "When the rule for the formation says Assault Squad it means the models purchased assault squad for that formation." out of that.

And you still haven't referenced anything properly yet regarding this subject.

blaktoof wrote:And there is no need to make up a rule that the name of an unit is the same as saying unit for rules purposes.

There is a need when an IC joins for all rules purposes and only lists Special Rules being an exception, and not unit names. You are placing your own prejudices in place as rules. And since you don't think it needs to be written, then you've been purporting HYWPI as RAW this entire time.

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

Is this a joke?
An ork pain boy that joins a squad of stormboyz is not called a stormboy. It still is a painboy. However it is a "unit" that doesn't mean it becomes a stormboy squad nor does it become an inquisitor squad. It's just a unit. No name no title because the rules never state anywhere a character changes his title anywhere.

Is this intended to be a joke or just trolling? It has been explained by myself at least twice now, and I haven't kept track of the others.

Why are you suggesting that a model change its name when we haven't suggested it? Would you call the Nob in a Stormboy unit a Stormboy? If not, why would you suggest this?

No, in this case, the Pain Boy remains a Pain Boy model, it just subsumes it's Pain Boy Unit identity in to the Stormboy unit identity while joined.

gungo wrote:The other joke In this thread is claiming the itc is the only rule body that stated characters don't gain formations rules from skyhammer. Nearly every major tournament EtC, ITC, even warhammer world all stated this doesn't work. And the same 3-4 people on this thread brushed it all off that none of those people know the rules and only they are correct. Hence the pointlessness of arguing with these people. They are living in thoer own little bubble saying everyone else is wrong and they are right. You're never going to change thier mind nor does it matter because no one plays this way.

The joke is using Tournament decisions to define RAW when they House Rule against it all the time, especially where they are concerned about balance. Remember, nothing about what we've stated has been regarding how strong the set up is, or even how well balanced it is. We are simply discussing if it is legal in the base rules.

Even more a joke is applying standards that are in your own heads and declaring them as RAW without proper reference. I created a list of counter-arguments used, but no one has yet to answer them in any form. You want to talk about pointless. Try arguing with someone who cannot even present a rules-based argument for the position, but instead relies on House Rules and Balance as the arguments as to why it is illegal.

gungo wrote:
The other joke In this thread is claiming the itc is the only rule body that stated characters don't gain formations rules from skyhammer. Nearly every major tournament EtC, ITC, even warhammer world all stated this doesn't work. And the same 3-4 people on this thread brushed it all off that none of those people know the rules and only they are correct. Hence the pointlessness of arguing with these people. They are living in thoer own little bubble saying everyone else is wrong and they are right. You're never going to change thier mind nor does it matter because no one plays this way.

´

Just let me get one thing straight: The ITC and "other rule bodies" clearly make house rules in order to balance the game. The Skyhammer formation in itself is very strong, allowing ICs (regardless of RAW) to benefit from the Formation would make it even stronger. That is the primary reason why the ITC and many other do not allow ICs to benefit. All TOs i know allow Psyker Mastery Levels within a unit to "stack". Does that make sense? Yes. Does it help balance the game? Probably. Is it rules as written? No, period.

Bringing up ITC house rulings and similar stuff in a discussion about the actual rules as written simply distracts from the actual topic - the rules as written. Sure, you can use the ITC as a guideline, but simply saying "but the ITC ruled it like that" is not an argument. Rules as written do not include tournament rule sets nor does it include an event somewhere. It only ever includes the rules as they are written in a Book, official PDF or FAQ/Errata.

If you want to discuss balance or balancing changes, go to the subforum right below this one - it's called 40K Proposed Rules for a reason. If you want to discuss tournament rules, either go to the TOs site or go to the corresponding subforum called Tournament Discussions.

This isn't tournament rules as even warhammer world doesn't play it this way. In fact the tournaments themselves don't even claim attaching characters to the skyhammer formation as a rule change because it's not. The only house ruling is by the individuals trying to attach independent charscters to the skyhammer formation and claim they are considered an assault squad.

gungo wrote:
This isn't tournament rules as even warhammer world doesn't play it this way. In fact the tournaments themselves don't even claim attaching characters to the skyhammer formation as a rule change because it's not. The only house ruling is by the individuals trying to attach independent charscters to the skyhammer formation and claim they are considered an assault squad.

Please, go on. Please demonstrate how we have been inaccurate in our references. Please provide references so we may review the rules regarding this situation. We've only asked for them ad nauseum by now.

But here's a few factors that you don't seem to understand, because your own final statement demonstrates that you have not even attempted to understand our position:

We have never once claimed that an attached IC is an assault squad. The idea is ludicrous in the extreme, and is closer to Blacktoof's assumptive reasoning. An Assault Squad is a UNIT that consists of models numbering 1 Sergeant (of variable rank) and 4-9 Marines. When the IC joins the Assault Squad, it becomes a unit that consists of models numbering 1 Sergeant, 4-9 Marines, and the IC.

Please demonstrate the error of that last statement, if you can. And please provide references, or be known as the joke you called our position earlier.

gungo wrote:
This isn't tournament rules as even warhammer world doesn't play it this way. In fact the tournaments themselves don't even claim attaching characters to the skyhammer formation as a rule change because it's not. The only house ruling is by the individuals trying to attach independent charscters to the skyhammer formation and claim they are considered an assault squad.

When you say Warhammer World plays it a certain way what do you mean? Are you using their tournament FAQ? Or the word of a staff member (because I've spoken to a staff member who thinks our side is correct)? What do you mean by that statement?

gungo wrote:
This isn't tournament rules as even warhammer world doesn't play it this way. In fact the tournaments themselves don't even claim attaching characters to the skyhammer formation as a rule change because it's not. The only house ruling is by the individuals trying to attach independent charscters to the skyhammer formation and claim they are considered an assault squad.

Noone is claiming that.

We are claiming that, when an IC joins an Assault Squad, the unit name remains ASsault Squad. This is a truth, as in, you cannot argue against it

However, we have also noticed you dont even try to argue rules. You just repeat, ad nauseum, that house rules from tournaments such as ETC (the famous houseruling against raw all the fething time tournament scene) somehow matter.

They dont

The actual rules matter. The ones you ignore. The ones you pretend dont exist. The ones where you twist argumetns, deliberately misrepresenting clear as day statements by others in the vain hope we wont notice that you are arguing dishonestly.

You are, on this matter, utterly incorrect. The RAW is proven.

Blaktoof - I will not continue this dialogue of the deaf with you. You fail to cite a single relevant rule, or answer honestly the questions posed. Bye.

gungo wrote:
This isn't tournament rules as even warhammer world doesn't play it this way.

Warhammer World and "conversations with an GW employee" fall under the "event" category to me. If GW doesn't provide a FAQ or Errata, it is NOT "rules as written". GW employees simply give you an opinion piece, and you should treat it as such.WHW - as was already pointed out - makes sure players have fun in a fair (balanced) environment and if that means bending or breaking this or that rule, I'm sure they're fine with that. See again my example of how Psykers are treated - I BET they allow you to count all psykers in a unit toward your warp charge count. Still doesn't make it rules as written!

In fact the tournaments themselves don't even claim attaching characters to the skyhammer formation as a rule change because it's not.

Let me quote the damn ITC FAQ:

Space Marines

Vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment benefit from the Machine Empathy special rule even if they do not have the Chapter Tactics special rule.

Independant Characters may not benefit from the special rules granted from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc.

The Captain in a Battle Demi-Company or Battle Company formation may not be upgraded to a Chapter Master.

These three lines are the latest additions for SM in the ITC FAQ found here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub
So you're saying despite the other two rules clearly being rule changes that the one in the middle is not, by some kind of miracle, a rule change?

The only house ruling is by the individuals trying to attach independent charscters to the skyhammer formation and claim they are considered an assault squad.

Charistoph said it almost perfectly:

Charistoph wrote:We have never once claimed that an attached IC is an assault squad. An Assault Squad is a UNIT that consists of models numbering 1 Sergeant (of variable rank) and 4-9 Marines. When the IC joins the Assault Squad, it (the Assault Squad) becomes a unit that consists of models numbering 1 Sergeant, 4-9 Marines, and the IC.

I've added the bold part for clarification. The entire premise is based on this rule:

BRB, Independent Characters 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.

If you refute that claim, please provide actual rules without twisting the arguments presented to something different.

You forget the funky part that "Special rules of a unit do not carry over to the IC". And all the perks of the skyhammer formation are under a nice blanket title of "Special rules:".

topaxygouroun i wrote:
You forget the funky part that "Special rules of a unit do not carry over to the IC". And all the perks of the skyhammer formation are under a nice blanket title of "Special rules:".

Please cite a rule that an IC cannot benefit from a special rule that a unit has. The IC does not gain the rule(s) in question, but nobody has ever posited that.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
You forget the funky part that "Special rules of a unit do not carry over to the IC". And all the perks of the skyhammer formation are under a nice blanket title of "Special rules:".

PLease, provide a source for that quote. Or was it just yet more rules mangling from the "I dont like it" camp?

Please show how the IC cannot BENEFIT from the rule. We do not even have to show they *have* the rule, just that they, as a normal member of the unit, beenfit from the effect of the rule (being allowed to charge))

Please, if you wish to engage in a rules debate, please quote rules. If you are just arguing hywpi, please follow the tenets and make this clear.

So if the ic joined a formation that wasn't decurion type, and that formations gained feel no pain or relentless, would the ic also get it?

Many of you who are for the ics joining the sky hammer said no, then said it is completely different. Well it isn't, its the exact same premise you are all proposing but when you look at it like that it sounds wrong.

Either way I would outright refuse to play against the this formation if someone tried to attach ics to the unit because that move in a pick up game is the definition of a TFG move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
You forget the funky part that "Special rules of a unit do not carry over to the IC". And all the perks of the skyhammer formation are under a nice blanket title of "Special rules:".

PLease, provide a source for that quote. Or was it just yet more rules mangling from the "I dont like it" camp?

Please show how the IC cannot BENEFIT from the rule. We do not even have to show they *have* the rule, just that they, as a normal member of the unit, beenfit from the effect of the rule (being allowed to charge))

Please, if you wish to engage in a rules debate, please quote rules. If you are just arguing hywpi, please follow the tenets and make this clear.

Independent Character special rule: "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."

Skyhammer formation consists of X and Y squads. A skyhammer formation does not have an IC in it. The Skyhammer formation gains some Special Rules which are described perfectly clear in their entry as being "Special rules". The IC you join in a skyhammer is a part of the unit. Hoerver, because it is not stated so in the Rule, the unit's Special rules do not carry over to the IC, as per the IC Special rule statement.

You are welcome.

Sigh. So you havent read the thread then. Or even my post. If you had, you would see these had been covered more than 10 times already.

SHow how the IC cannoT BENEFIT FROM the rule. Page and graph. Benefit is not the same as conferred. Notice how your rule only talks about "conferred", andnever mentions "benefits"? Have you noticed how you can benefit from something while never having the thing?

Secondly, when the IC joins the unit -> before deployment <- the unit does not have certain rules, does it? Your reading of the skyhammer rule should tell you this is true. So, a rule applying to ICs joinING does not apply to an IC who has joinED, by simple use of, well, actual language and how the rules of the language work.

"Benefit is not same as conferred". You are playing with words. I am not playing the wording game, sorry. I showed you a crystal clear rule that states that the IC does not get the special rules its unit has. The burden of proof is on your side now. You show me a specific rule that states your opinion, or I will stick to the actuall printed rule that makes perfect sense. Trying to convince me with changing the wording does not work and I really really doubt it will work on any TO once someone like me shows them the IC rule.

On your second part, you are still wrong. A skyhammer formation has its special rules way before deployment, from the moment you choose them in your list. My infiltrating unit has the Infiltrate special rule ALWAYS, regardless of whether I actually infiltrate with them or not, and even after the initial deployment, they still have the infiltrate special rule.

In short, an infantry character that joins a unit of bikes does not get any special rules of the bikers. What you are suggesting about the skyhammer would also suggest that said character is allowed to jink just because its unit is allowed to. This is not the case. Notice also how said character IS actually benefiting from Feel no Pain in case said bikers have an icon of excess, because the Icon of excess specifically states that it confers the Fell no pain to the unit, and the IC is indeed a part of the unit.

Incorrect, the burden is to prove your contention has any relevance

Written rules are by definition a "word game". If you wish to not use language correctly, and conflate two terms together, thats your issue. Not mine.

So does a non-fearless IC BENEFIT from a unit with the Fearless rule? They do not get the rule conferred to them, however they still BENEFIT from it.

Under your perverse, rule ignoring baseless opinion, the IC would have to make a morale check if their unit lost combat.

Of course, that is nonsense.

So, now AGAIN it has been proven that gaining a benefit from something is NOT the same as having the thing conferred ipon you, woudl you like to give any actual RELEVANT rules? Or will you again hang your hang on the proven-wrong-20-times argument? If so, amrk your posts "HYWPI", as they are proven to not be the rules as written

Secondly, seriously. Reread the Skyhammer rules. Note which rules apply to the formationm and which rules are granted WHEN THE UNIT HITS THE TABLE. The relentless ability etc are granted when they hit the table. Not before.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
On your second part, you are still wrong. A skyhammer formation has its special rules way before deployment, from the moment you choose them in your list. My infiltrating unit has the Infiltrate special rule ALWAYS, regardless of whether I actually infiltrate with them or not, and even after the initial deployment, they still have the infiltrate special rule.

Does the Devastator squad have the Relentless special rule, or does it have the "First the Fire, Then the Blade" special rule?

No one is claiming the IC has FTFTTB. However, the rule grants the Devastator squad (which the IC is a member of for all rules purposes) the Relentless special rule. Note that the special rule does not say "An Assault Squad with this rule..." nor does it say "Models in this formation have..." If the wording was similar to either of the above (and this is one thing GW is at least consistent on when minimizing benefits) then an attached IC would not gain Relentless nor would the Assault squad be able to charge with an attached IC.

 Happyjew wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
On your second part, you are still wrong. A skyhammer formation has its special rules way before deployment, from the moment you choose them in your list. My infiltrating unit has the Infiltrate special rule ALWAYS, regardless of whether I actually infiltrate with them or not, and even after the initial deployment, they still have the infiltrate special rule.

Does the Devastator squad have the Relentless special rule, or does it have the "First the Fire, Then the Blade" special rule?

No one is claiming the IC has FTFTTB. However, the rule grants the Devastator squad (which the IC is a member of for all rules purposes) the Relentless special rule. Note that the special rule does not say "An Assault Squad with this rule..." nor does it say "Models in this formation have..." If the wording was similar to either of the above (and this is one thing GW is at least consistent on when minimizing benefits) then an attached IC would not gain Relentless nor would the Assault squad be able to charge with an attached IC.

The devas of the skyhammer have relentless on the turn they arrive. They have this ability even before they arrive. This is a special rule conferred to the devas of the skyhammer formation. Ie other devastators do not have it. The skyhammer formation unit composition does not include an IC. When you join an IC to a unit, it counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Including the rule that clearly states that the IC does not get the special rules its squad have. I literally cannot say this any more clear than this. If we can't agree on that then I'm afraid this is as far as this conversation goes.

The devas of the skyhammer have relentless on the turn they arrive. They have this ability even before they arrive. This is a special rule conferred to the devas of the skyhammer formation. Ie other devastators do not have it. The skyhammer formation unit composition does not include an IC. When you join an IC to a unit, it counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Including the rule that clearly states that the IC does not get the special rules its squad have. I literally cannot say this any more clear than this. If we can't agree on that then I'm afraid this is as far as this conversation goes.

How many times do you have to be told no one is suggesting the IC gets or has conferred to him the Formation Special rule. No one has said he has FFTTB or gains that rule at any time.

So do you have ANY relevant argument against the points we've raised?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, the burden is to prove your contention has any relevance

Written rules are by definition a "word game". If you wish to not use language correctly, and conflate two terms together, thats your issue. Not mine.

So does a non-fearless IC BENEFIT from a unit with the Fearless rule? They do not get the rule conferred to them, however they still BENEFIT from it.

Under your perverse, rule ignoring baseless opinion, the IC would have to make a morale check if their unit lost combat.

Of course, that is nonsense.

So, now AGAIN it has been proven that gaining a benefit from something is NOT the same as having the thing conferred ipon you, woudl you like to give any actual RELEVANT rules? Or will you again hang your hang on the proven-wrong-20-times argument? If so, amrk your posts "HYWPI", as they are proven to not be the rules as written

Secondly, seriously. Reread the Skyhammer rules. Note which rules apply to the formationm and which rules are granted WHEN THE UNIT HITS THE TABLE. The relentless ability etc are granted when they hit the table. Not before.

Jesus man, read the fething rulebook before you even post. Fearless Special rule SPECIFICALLY STATES that if at least one model has the rule then it applies sto everybody. This is a SPECIFIC STATEMENT and as such it agrees with the IC Special rule, ergo why your character gains fearless. The skyhammer does have jucking gak about specific statements. This is the simplest argument ever. You just have to open your eyes and see beyond the cheese you are dreaming about.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, the burden is to prove your contention has any relevance

Written rules are by definition a "word game". If you wish to not use language correctly, and conflate two terms together, thats your issue. Not mine.

So does a non-fearless IC BENEFIT from a unit with the Fearless rule? They do not get the rule conferred to them, however they still BENEFIT from it.

Under your perverse, rule ignoring baseless opinion, the IC would have to make a morale check if their unit lost combat.

Of course, that is nonsense.

So, now AGAIN it has been proven that gaining a benefit from something is NOT the same as having the thing conferred ipon you, woudl you like to give any actual RELEVANT rules? Or will you again hang your hang on the proven-wrong-20-times argument? If so, amrk your posts "HYWPI", as they are proven to not be the rules as written

Secondly, seriously. Reread the Skyhammer rules. Note which rules apply to the formationm and which rules are granted WHEN THE UNIT HITS THE TABLE. The relentless ability etc are granted when they hit the table. Not before.

Jesus man, read the fething rulebook before you even post. Fearless Special rule SPECIFICALLY STATES that if at least one model has the rule then it applies sto everybody. This is a SPECIFIC STATEMENT and as such it agrees with the IC Special rule, ergo why your character gains fearless. The skyhammer does have jucking gak about specific statements. This is the simplest argument ever. You just have to open your eyes and see beyond the cheese you are dreaming about.

A bit of pot and kettle. The IC does not gain the Fearless special rule. You are right the argument is simple:


Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.  
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.  

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.  

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.  
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault.  

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault.  

Note how I NEVER state the IC gains or has the special rule. So do you have an argument against any of those premises. They are numbered so it is easy for you to tell me which is incorrect.

Konrax wrote:So if the ic joined a formation that wasn't decurion type, and that formations gained feel no pain or relentless, would the ic also get it?

As already stated, it depends. If they are specifically listed as Special Rules of the Formation, no more than an unMarked Chaos Sorcerer joining Plague Marines. These specific rules are usable only by the models who carry them.

However, if FNP and Relentless are granted because of another rule that grants it to the whole unit, then yes, it would, just as if the IC was joined to a squad that had a Narthecium.

It's not like we haven't specifically answered this several times already.

Konrax wrote:Many of you who are for the ics joining the sky hammer said no, then said it is completely different. Well it isn't, its the exact same premise you are all proposing but when you look at it like that it sounds wrong.

Please demonstrate how, "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound" or "Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons" is the same premise as "When a unit that" or "the Assault Sqauds can charge"?

Please demonstrate how we stated or implied that a model-affecting rule would be as conferable as a unit-affecting rule like Stubborn, especially when we've stated numerous times otherwise?

Konrax wrote:Either way I would outright refuse to play against the this formation if someone tried to attach ics to the unit because that move in a pick up game is the definition of a TFG move.

Then I would refuse to allow your ICs to benefit from Stubborn, then units from benefiting from Zealot and Fearless from the IC, and so on. When a unit Goes To Ground, I would not allow you to grant a Cover Save to any IC.

This is the standard you are proposing as RAW.

topaxygouroun i wrote:Independent Character special rule: "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."

Skyhammer formation consists of X and Y squads. A skyhammer formation does not have an IC in it. The Skyhammer formation gains some Special Rules which are described perfectly clear in their entry as being "Special rules". The IC you join in a skyhammer is a part of the unit. Hoerver, because it is not stated so in the Rule, the unit's Special rules do not carry over to the IC, as per the IC Special rule statement.

So, by your example, an IC would not be able to benefit from Stubborn. A Space Marine Chapter Master would not be able to fire Ordnance or Heavy Weapons and Charge while in a Centurion Squad because Slow and Purposeful would not affect him since he is not a Centurion Squad. A Crusader Squad would not gain the benefits of Zealot when joined by a Chaplain because they are not Chaplains.

Such is the train of your thought.

topaxygouroun i wrote:The devas of the skyhammer have relentless on the turn they arrive. They have this ability even before they arrive. This is a special rule conferred to the devas of the skyhammer formation. Ie other devastators do not have it. The skyhammer formation unit composition does not include an IC. When you join an IC to a unit, it counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Including the rule that clearly states that the IC does not get the special rules its squad have. I literally cannot say this any more clear than this. If we can't agree on that then I'm afraid this is as far as this conversation goes.

They do not have Relentless before they arrive, only the rule that gives it to them. The rule does not give them Relentless till they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves. Admittedly, this one could be worded as providing the benefit better, but it still provides the UNIT Relentless, not the original members or possessors of the rule the benefit.

As we have pointed out, there is an exception to the exception. The rule is that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes. The exception is the Special Rules the models come with. The exception to that exception is provided with a reference to a USR. The example provided is Stubborn. Stubborn does not require ever model to have it (like Fleet and Deep Strike). It does not confer its benefit only to models that have it (like Counter-Attack). It does not state that "models with this rule" (like Feel No Pain and Relentless). It simply states that the UNIT gets to receive its benefit (like Fearless and First the Fire, Then the Blade).

So, either you are applying a double-standard, you truly cannot differentiate the difference between when a unit benefits from a rule instead of just the models, or like a certain dark-dentaled one, you cannot discern the difference between a model, a unit, and a datasheet.

But hey, if you just want to declare that's HYWPI because of balance and because other tournaments choose to balance it, I really have no argument against it, as that is an opinion-based matter, not a literary-based one.

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault.

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault.

Your error is on conclusion 1 and Premise 3. First of all, the IC can join the unit and indeed counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. That being said, the IC is not a member of the "Skyhammer anihilation force". It is part of a unit that also happens to come out of a formation. Could as well be part of any other detachment. The IC cannot be part of the formation because the formation specifically states which units consist the skyhammer anihilation force. Secondly, the assault squad does not get the right to assault out of deepstrike. Instead the assault squad, which is a part of the skyhammer anihilation force gains a Special Rule. The rule is called "First the fire, then the blade" and among other things it allows the assault squad from the formation to assault out of the pod. But this is a special rule. It is so because it is marked under a huge title that says "Special Rules". Because it is a special rule that applies to the formation, it does not apply to the IC because 1. The IC is not part of the formation and 2. The IC Special Rule forbids the IC to get any Special rules its joined unit have unless specifically stated so. But it is not stated, so the IC does not get it.

Our disagreement is in the part that the IC is as part of the assault unit, but it is not part of the formation.


Here is a similar example. Let's take the Living artillery node formation. It's 3 biovores, 1 exocrine and a unit of warriors. When the biovores and the exocrine are in synapse range of the warriors unit, they gain pinning and reroll scatter. Now let's say I attach a tyranid prime to the unit of warriors. Since it is an IC, it counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes. Still, the Tyranid Prime is not part of the formation, and if a biovore is in synapse range of the Prime but not the warriors in the unit then this biovore will not gain the benefits. It is exactly the same argument, although I admit far less game breaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So, by your example, an IC would not be able to benefit from Stubborn.

Read the Stubborn special rule. While you are at it, read the Shrouded special rule and the Fearless special rule. Then read the fleet special rule and see why the IC gets to benefit from the first 3 but not the last one.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault.

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault.

Your error is on conclusion 1 and Premise 3. First of all, the IC can join the unit and indeed counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. That being said, the IC is not a member of the "Skyhammer anihilation force". It is part of a unit that also happens to come out of a formation. Could as well be part of any other detachment. The IC cannot be part of the formation because the formation specifically states which units consist the skyhammer anihilation force. Secondly, the assault squad does not get the right to assault out of deepstrike. Instead the assault squad, which is a part of the skyhammer anihilation force gains a Special Rule. The rule is called "First the fire, then the blade" and among other things it allows the assault squad from the formation to assault out of the pod. But this is a special rule. It is so because it is marked under a huge title that says "Special Rules". Because it is a special rule that applies to the formation, it does not apply to the IC because 1. The IC is not part of the formation and 2. The IC Special Rule forbids the IC to get any Special rules its joined unit have unless specifically stated so. But it is not stated, so the IC does not get it.

Our disagreement is in the part that the IC is as part of the assault unit, but it is not part of the formation.

Can you demonstrate how the Assault Squad is no longer part of the Formation when an IC joins it? Can you demonstrate how any of the Skyhammer rules differentiate the difference between models purchased with the Formation and models not? Can you demonstrate how one member of a unit can be selected out without specifically stating as such?

Please remember Tenet 1a, and provide rules to back up your statements.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Here is a similar example. Let's take the Living artillery node formation. It's 3 biovores, 1 exocrine and a unit of warriors. When the biovores and the exocrine are in synapse range of the warriors unit, they gain pinning and reroll scatter. Now let's say I attach a tyranid prime to the unit of warriors. Since it is an IC, it counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes. Still, the Tyranid Prime is not part of the formation, and if a biovore is in synapse range of the Prime but not the warriors in the unit then this biovore will not gain the benefits. It is exactly the same argument, although I admit far less game breaking.

Does the rule state within the Synapse Range of the Warriors unit, specifically?

If so, why is the Prime part of the unit when "Stubborn" is applied to it or "Objective Secured" being determined, but not with the Living Artillery Node Special Rule or "First the Fire, Then the Blade"?

It is to this is we mean by a double standard.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

So, by your example, an IC would not be able to benefit from Stubborn.

Read the Stubborn special rule. While you are at it, read the Shrouded special rule and the Fearless special rule. Then read the fleet special rule and see why the IC gets to benefit from the first 3 but not the last one.

Oh, you mean like the examples I gave?

Charistoph wrote:The rule is that ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes. The exception is the Special Rules the models come with. The exception to that exception is provided with a reference to a USR. The example provided is Stubborn. Stubborn does not require ever model to have it (like Fleet and Deep Strike). Stubborn does not confer its benefit only to models that have it (like Counter-Attack). It does not state that "models with this rule" (like Feel No Pain and Relentless). It simply states that the UNIT gets to receive its benefit (like Fearless and First the Fire, Then the Blade).

Can you demonstrate how the Skyhammer rules match either Fleet, Counter-Attack, or Stubborn to prove your case?

HIWPI - and what makes sense to me

The unit has the special rule similar to if it had the special rule under its codex profile.

For example, imagine this rule was written into its codex profile similar to 'feel no pain'. Just because an IC joins the unit he doesn't get this ability.

In the codex profile it would have to say '*any character who joins the unit also gains feel no pain'

Sigh...

The assault squad is always a part of the formation. IC inside or not. Even with the IC inside, the assault squad is part of the formation. Ergo it has the fire/blade special rule. The Ic is not part of the formation, and therefore it does not have the fire/blade special rule, even if it IS part of the unit. This happens because the IC rule states that your character cannot get any special rules the unit has UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. And here is the difference with fearless/stubborn/shrouded etc. All of these (otherwise) state that if one guy has the rule they all play along. The Skyhammer has no such provision, ergo it is prohibited from being passed along to the IC by the IC special rule. This is why there is no "double standard" as you state it. Instead we follow the rules to the letter (all the rules, mind you) and we get to our conclusions. Here are the conclusions:

Fearless/shrouded/stubborn SPECIFICALLY STATE that if one guy has it, then the whole unit acts accordingly. Because it is stated specifically, it is allowed to pass on to the IC, because of the IC rule wording. Fire/blade and living artillery node special rules do not have a specific statement on them attached. Therefore the IC Special rule is in effect and the IC (either marine or tyranid) gets screwed, even if they are part of the unit for all rules purposes. Mind you that the IC Special Rule is a part of "all rules purposes". There is no way you can go around the IC Special rule, it is crystal clear. And all your assumptions conveniently put the IC rule aside. You cannot ignore the IC special rule, therefore you cannot ignore its implications.

Your error is on conclusion 1 and Premise 3. First of all, the IC can join the unit and indeed counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. That being said, the IC is not a member of the "Skyhammer anihilation force". It is part of a unit that also happens to come out of a formation

So conclusion 1 is wrong yet you go on to say it is correct as the underlined is the same as conclusion 1. So which is it?

Secondly, the assault squad does not get the right to assault out of deepstrike. Instead the assault squad, which is a part of the skyhammer anihilation force gains a Special Rule. The rule is called "First the fire, then the blade" and among other things it allows the assault squad from the formation to assault out of the pod. But this is a special rule. It is so because it is marked under a huge title that says "Special Rules". Because it is a special rule that applies to the formation, it does not apply to the IC because 1. The IC is not part of the formation and 2. The IC Special Rule forbids the IC to get any Special rules its joined unit have unless specifically stated so. But it is not stated, so the IC does not get it.

So premise 3 is lifted straight from First Fire then the Blade. So saying the special rule is wrong is not RaW. I never said the special rule is conferred to the IC it has an effect on the Assault Squad from the formation the IC is a normal member of that squad.

Our disagreement is in the part that the IC is as part of the assault unit, but it is not part of the formation.

So you believe the IC is part of the formation or not part of the squad? Or are you again inventing things to argue against, because my argument has him as part of the Assault Squad but not part of the formation.

Here is a similar example. Let's take the Living artillery node formation. It's 3 biovores, 1 exocrine and a unit of warriors. When the biovores and the exocrine are in synapse range of the warriors unit, they gain pinning and reroll scatter. Now let's say I attach a tyranid prime to the unit of warriors. Since it is an IC, it counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes. Still, the Tyranid Prime is not part of the formation, and if a biovore is in synapse range of the Prime but not the warriors in the unit then this biovore will not gain the benefits. It is exactly the same argument, although I admit far less game breaking.

In that example the Biovore would receive the benefit if the trigger is being in synapse range of the Warriors as the Prime is part of the warrior unit. So for example say Pedro Kantor joins a tactical squad from a demi company that tac squad still has ObSec and if Pedro is the only member of the unit within 3" of the objective the unit would still control that objective even if a nonObSec unit was contesting it. These are unit level rules interactions and as such it doesn't matter that Pedro doesn't have ObSec. For the same reasons in this case it doesn't matter the IC doesn't have First Fire then the Blade.

Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

That disagrees with what the rules state though. The rules state the Assault Squad can assault and the rules state the IC is a normal me,amber of the squad. Do you now accept that Premise 3 and Conclusion 1 are correct (as you've already stated conclusion 1 and premise 3 is literally the rules from FFTTB). So which of my Premises are incorrect?

The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The assault squad is always a part of the formation. IC inside or not. Even with the IC inside, the assault squad is part of the formation. Ergo it has the fire/blade special rule. The Ic is not part of the formation, and therefore it does not have the fire/blade special rule, even if it IS part of the unit. This happens because the IC rule states that your character cannot get any special rules the unit has UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. And here is the difference with fearless/stubborn/shrouded etc. All of these (otherwise) state that if one guy has the rule they all play along. The Skyhammer has no such provision, ergo it is prohibited from being passed along to the IC by the IC special rule. This is why there is no "double standard" as you state it. Instead we follow the rules to the letter (all the rules, mind you) and we get to our conclusions. Here are the conclusions:

You are incorrect on your conclusions.

You need to demonstrate how not being a model in the original Formation is different than being a not being a model in the original unit. You are applying a double standard here.

None of those rules state "if one guy as the rule they all play along", they say, "if the unit has one guy with the rule, the unit gets to do this". Every model that makes up an Assault Squad or Devastator Squad has the rule, so that is not a problem. The only time it is a problem, is when the IC's going to stop being part of the Assault Squad in the next Phase anyway. If you are implying that there is a minimum involved, then please provide the reference that states that Stubborn changes the minimum.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Fearless/shrouded/stubborn SPECIFICALLY STATE that if one guy has it, then the whole unit acts accordingly. Because it is stated specifically, it is allowed to pass on to the IC, because of the IC rule wording. Fire/blade and living artillery node special rules do not have a specific statement on them attached. Therefore the IC Special rule is in effect and the IC (either marine or tyranid) gets screwed, even if they are part of the unit for all rules purposes. Mind you that the IC Special Rule is a part of "all rules purposes". There is no way you can go around the IC Special rule, it is crystal clear. And all your assumptions conveniently put the IC rule aside. You cannot ignore the IC special rule, therefore you cannot ignore its implications.

We do not ignore the IC rules. We just use all of them instead of cherry-picking the ones we want to exclude.

Stubborn, Fearless, and Shrouded NEVER state that an Independent Character is included. EVER. Those two words are never stated. The reason why that "one model" statement exists is that the IC's unit identity is subsumed in to the unit they join. Without it, a Fearless IC would not be able to allow his unit to automatically pass Morale Checks. It is so that one IC model who is NOT part of the original unit identity can pass it on to the rest of his unit. This is why Counter-Attack includes that statement, even though models without it will not benefit. Because the IC's unit identity is lost and the IC's personal unit would not be charged.

Go back and review my example from the Destroyer Cult to understand the difference in what I mean.

 FlingitNow wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

That disagrees with what the rules state though. The rules state the Assault Squad can assault and the rules state the IC is a normal me,amber of the squad. Do you now accept that Premise 3 and Conclusion 1 are correct (as you've already stated conclusion 1 and premise 3 is literally the rules from FFTTB). So which of my Premises are incorrect?

No it does not disagree with any rules. It is you who disagrees with the rules. The rules do indeed state the Assault squad can pod-assault. This is not so because it is an assault squad, but instead it is because it is part from a formation. Ie if you pod another assault squad that is not part of the formation, that one cannot pod-assault. So only units that belong TO THE FORMATION can pod-assault. The IC is part of the squad. That being said, it is NOT part of the formation, because the formation datasheet does not include him. The IC cannot get the fire/blade rule from his squad because of how the IC special rule is worded and because the fire/blade rule does not have a specific statement to allow so.

Stop telling me about rules when you REPEATEDLY leave the IC Special rule out of the question all the time. You just can't ignore it. And there ends our discussion, because clearly I cannot convince you of it and you cannot convince me of your statement either. But I am right and you are not because you purposefully leave rules out of the conversation while I take everything into account. And by everything, I mean the rules of the game and not your interpretations of them.


And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

topaxygouroun i wrote:Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

3 is impossible, because the Assault Squad is required to purchase Jump Packs, and so unable to Embark on a Drop Pod.

4 does not matter. The rules do not state that the Formation does things, only units from the Formation do things, and the IC is part of the unit.

gungo wrote:The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist.

How can one be part of a unit called Assault Squad, but not be part of the unit called Assault Squad?

Did you actually proof reed these lines?

gungo wrote:Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

It's been quoted numerous times. "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)," and 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."

So, since Stubborn does not literally qualify Independent Characters, it must mean to use it as an example. Who does Stubborn affect? The unit. To whom does Stubborn confer? Nobody, Stubborn does not confer. Who is ultimately affected by Stubborn? Indirectly, the models as members of the unit.

Now, how many more times do you want to hear it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

YOU.KEEP.THE.INDEPENDENT.CHARACTER.SPECIAL.RULE.OUT.OF.THE.CONVERSATION.REPEATEDLY. THIS.MEANS.ALL.THE.TIME. YOU.CANNOT.KEEP.DOING.THIS.IF.YOU.WANT.TO.KEEP.DISCUSSING.THIS.TOPIC.

Topaxtgouroun i,
In your opinion, what words are used to indicate that an Independent Character joined to a Unit with a Special Rule benefits from that Special Rule?

At it's essence, these are the two Rules people are arguing over:
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.
- Independent Characters
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.
- Same Special Rule

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

That disagrees with what the rules state though. The rules state the Assault Squad can assault and the rules state the IC is a normal me,amber of the squad. Do you now accept that Premise 3 and Conclusion 1 are correct (as you've already stated conclusion 1 and premise 3 is literally the rules from FFTTB). So which of my Premises are incorrect?

No it does not disagree with any rules. It is you who disagrees with the rules. The rules do indeed state the Assault squad can pod-assault. This is not so because it is an assault squad, but instead it is because it is part from a formation. Ie if you pod another assault squad that is not part of the formation, that one cannot pod-assault. So only units that belong TO THE FORMATION can pod-assault. The IC is part of the squad. That being said, it is NOT part of the formation, because the formation datasheet does not include him. The IC cannot get the fire/blade rule from his squad because of how the IC special rule is worded and because the fire/blade rule does not have a specific statement to allow so.

Stop telling me about rules when you REPEATEDLY leave the IC Special rule out of the question all the time. You just can't ignore it. And there ends our discussion, because clearly I cannot convince you of it and you cannot convince me of your statement either. But I am right and you are not because you purposefully leave rules out of the conversation while I take everything into account. And by everything, I mean the rules of the game and not your interpretations of them.


And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

You keep using pod assault what do you mean by this?

Why does the IC need to have the special rule? Where in the special rule does it require the entire unit to have the rule for it to take effect? Again please point to which of my 3 premises are incorrect. Which? You keep telling me my rules are incorrect but refuse to actually argue against them. Why? Why won't you even attempt to disprove my argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

YOU.KEEP.THE.INDEPENDENT.CHARACTER.SPECIAL.RULE.OUT.OF.THE.CONVERSATION.REPEATEDLY. THIS.MEANS.ALL.THE.TIME. YOU.CANNOT.KEEP.DOING.THIS.IF.YOU.WANT.TO.KEEP.DISCUSSING.THIS.TOPIC.

Show that rule has relevance. That rule stops the IC gaining the rule unless specifically called out. I have never once claimed the IC gains the rule so explain how that rule is remotely relevant to my argument?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The IC does not have the Fire/Blade rule any more than a Blood Angel Captain joining a Dark Angels Stubborn unit would have Stubborn. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule grants benefits to specific units, as does Stubborn/Fearless/Objective Secured, and UNLIKE Feel No Pain/Relentless. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT require all models to have it, as does Fleet/Deep Strike. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT only affect possessors in the unit, as does Counter-Attack. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

So, now after six pages, we have the same few people repeatedly ignoring the difference between confer and benefit, confused over what a unit does and what models do, etc

An attached IC can assault. This is raw. An attached IC gains relentless. This is raw. Stating otherwise ignores the written rules, makes up entirely new rules out of thin air, or just shows a wilful ignorance of the difference between confers and the word benefit.

It cannot be put simpler than that. There is only so many times you can hammer home the immense gaps in someone's argument befor this dialogue of the deaf gets tiresome

To new readers: raw, an IC attached to the assault squad may assault. This is utter, 100% written rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, now after six pages, we have the same few people repeatedly ignoring the difference between confer and benefit, confused over what a unit does and what models do, etc

An attached IC can assault. This is raw. An attached IC gains relentless. This is raw. Stating otherwise ignores the written rules, makes up entirely new rules out of thin air, or just shows a wilful ignorance of the difference between confers and the word benefit.

It cannot be put simpler than that. There is only so many times you can hammer home the immense gaps in someone's argument befor this dialogue of the deaf gets tiresome

To new readers: raw, an IC attached to the assault squad may assault. This is utter, 100% written rules.

so now after six pages we have the same very few vocal people claiming things without any Rules support, and then waffling on their claims.

to new readers, an IC attached to an assault squad is not able to assault with first the fire and the blade, this is utter 100% rules as written.

Charistoph wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The IC does not have the Fire/Blade rule any more than a Blood Angel Captain joining a Dark Angels Stubborn unit would have Stubborn. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule grants benefits to specific units, as does Stubborn/Fearless/Objective Secured, and UNLIKE Feel No Pain/Relentless. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT require all models to have it, as does Fleet/Deep Strike. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT only affect possessors in the unit, as does Counter-Attack. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

most of your points are actually completely false.

the only one you are have correct is that the IC is a model in the unit.

you + about 3 vocal others claim that the unit name = unit. Or rather that the attribute of a datasheet= unit. This is the only way you can jusitfy the claim that the IC is a model in the unit and the rule is an unit rule so therefore the rule must confer to the IC, however you ignore the rule does not say its an unit rule, and you ignore that the rule says "assault squads in the skyhammer anhillation force" which the IC is never, even when attached.

you then go on to make the false poorly thought out claim that because the name of the unit has the word unit in it, that the name of the unit is the same as saying unit. Which has no rules support anywhere. It has as much rules support as saying an IC attached to an unit has to take on the:

7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.

because it has the word unit and an IC is a member of the unit for all purposes, therefore when your IC joins the unit it loses its stats, gear, faction, special rules, etc and has to use the unit composition of the unit it joins. All rules purposes and all.

OR those are not what units are, but are descriptive parts of units purchased for the datasheet, which is what the rules state.

Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

So by saying assault squad in the skyhammer annihilation force for "first the fire then the blade" they are referencing....the space marine unit datasheet purchased to fulfill the required slot for the skyhammer annhilation force. And not an UNIT rule. As the IC cannot join the unit before deployment, and is obviously not a member of the datasheet "assault squad" purchased from the skyhammer annihilation force even when the model is joined to the unit, it is not from the "assault squad in the skyhammer annihilation force" or counts as one, ever.

in no way shape or form is there any RAW saying that any word other than "unit" can be used to try and have an IC give rules to the unit is joined, or benefit from rules of the unit is has joined.

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

So the special rules, e.g. first the fire then the blade has to SPECIFY in the rule itself, the units special rules are not conferred upon the character. an example for stubborn is given. Here is an example from zealot special rule:

A unit containing one or more models with the Zealot special rule automatically passes Pi[/u]nning, Fear and Regroup tests and Morale checks, but cannot Go to Ground and cannot choose to fail a Morale check due to the Our Weapons Are Useless rule. If a unit gains the Zealot special rule when it has Gone to Ground, all the effects of Go to Ground are immediately cancelled.

notice how it SPECIFIES in the rule itself it extends to the unit if one or more models has it?

Lets look at first the fire then the blade from skyhammer

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

there is no SPECIFIC mentioning anywhere in the rule itself that it affects the unit, or the unit if one or more models has. Which by the absolute RAW means the IC does not have the rule conferred on them, and cannot benefit from it.

It does say "the devastator squad in the skyhammer annihilation force"

some posters (4 of you) seem to think somewhere there is a magical rule that lets you use attributes of army list entries to mean the word unit, and then further that without it being written it means the whole unit has the effect if at least one model has it- also not written. Therefore with this non written anywhere made up rules justification you have come up with, the Unit Name, an attribute of the army list entry, is the same as the word "unit" in your arguement. This of course has multiple levels of no rules support as just shown to you, as well as the implication that when you say an IC is a member of the unit, if "unit" is interchangeable with the army list entry, you are actually claiming an IC joined to an unit is from that army list entry[which is a datasheet] from a different formation. This is specifically not allowed by the rules. It also means if in your land of made up rules that if an attribute of an army list entry (the unit name) is interchangeable with the rule term unit(again no rule support anywhere for this) then the other army list entry attributes are also interchangeable. Which means according to you, if Tigurius joins an unit of scouts he has to use the unit composition for scouts, which includes profile, gear, rules, etc.

the amount of wrong with the things you 4 posters are suggesting is ridiculous.

... same old, same old then.