This issue came up last game. There's a formation of vanguard vets that can charge out of deepstrike. It says that the unit can deepstrike and than emidiately charge. Also, they have an innate rule that the squad can re-roll charge range and don't loose attacks on multicharge. So, what he did is joined in Marneus Calgar with some sort of termi armor to deepstrike. Performed a deepstrike and charged in re-rolling distance and not loosing attack.
Was it correct? Is there anything preventing from doing it? IC don't share special rules with the rest of the squad as they're not part of this formation but if the special rule states it affects the squad?
It's quite commonly accepted and agreed that if the rule benefits the unit, then a joined Independent Character would also benefit:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."
The most common objection to the above is based on the following line regarding Independent Characters and 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."
We know though that this doesn't matter, because Stubborn doesn't specify anything at all about Independent Characters, and tells us that it affects the unit:
"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."
So we know that when a rule affects a unit it also affects joined Independent Characters.
Lance845 wrote: If the rule is a part of the unit the IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
If you read further, it says that IC are NOT affected by squad's special rules unless it's specified. Yes, they are affected by rules but not special rules...
Spoiler:
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.
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.
That's why i'm a bit confused. It first says that arr rules and purposes. Than says no special rules.
It depends only on how the rules confer. As above with stubborn, the rule says any one model gives it to the unit. So the IC being a part of the unit gets it.
You would need to type out the exact rule to clarify anything else.
Main difference between special rule such as stubborn or outflank or other normal written special rule and on time lies there Normal special rule says "unit with this special rule can...." On time say "Vanguards from formation can...". That's why I think that you don't need this special rule on character ether on squad, because they are still vanguard veterans from formation
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I have a question about reverse situation. If a IC joins non-formation unit, whole unit became non formation unit?
ahnob wrote: And I have a question about reverse situation. If a IC joins non-formation unit, whole unit became non formation unit?
If an Independent Character from a formation joins a unit not from the same formation, he counts as part of the unit not from the same formation for all rules purposes.
Lance845 wrote: If the rule is a part of the unit the IC is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
If you read further, it says that IC are NOT affected by squad's special rules unless it's specified. Yes, they are affected by rules but not special rules...
Spoiler:
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.
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.
That's why i'm a bit confused. It first says that they are for rules and purposes. Than says no special rules.
It does not say no special rules, it just says they do not confer. If a unit's datasheet states the unit has Relentless (such as a Terminator Squad), a Power-Armoured HQ does not have Relentless conferred upon him.
It also allows an out to work like Stubborn does. Stubborn does not state it confers, though, it just affects the unit. So a Blood Angels Captain joining a Dark Angels Tactical Squad does not gain Stubborn from the Tactical Squad, but his Leadership will not be negatively affected during Morale Checks or Pinning Tests since he is part of the unit.
If you continue reading the IC rules, it mentions that if an IC is in a unit affected by a special rule, such as Blind, than that effect continues on the IC even if the IC leaves the unit. Blind is a rule that if a certain test is failed, all models in the unit have their WS and BS reduced. So we see a rule affecting a unit also affects the IC, since they are considered "in the unit".
There are some who argue that if a unit is called by its name, it is not referencing anything but the original models of the unit. They have not supported this by any rule, though. And since having a rule affect a unit by name, is still affecting a unit, the IC is still included in the affect just as much as he is for Shooting, Stubborn, or Blind.
Look at the legend for the Datasheets and compare it to the Vanguard datasheet. Where it states "Vanguard Veteran Squad", what is that called by the datasheet legend?
It does not say no special rules, it just says they do not confer. If a unit's datasheet states the unit has Relentless (such as a Terminator Squad), a Power-Armoured HQ does not have Relentless conferred upon him.
The problem i see here is that even if the IC in the unit doesn't have this rule, it still doesn't seem to prevent him from charging. As the other models still have this rule which states that the Squad can charge. And IC are part of the squad. Even if they don't have a rule to allow them to charge, they're still allowed to charge cause of how it's worded?..
It does not say no special rules, it just says they do not confer. If a unit's datasheet states the unit has Relentless (such as a Terminator Squad), a Power-Armoured HQ does not have Relentless conferred upon him.
The problem i see here is that even if the IC in the unit doesn't have this rule, it still doesn't seem to prevent him from charging. As the other models still have this rule which states that the Squad can charge. And IC are part of the squad. Even if they don't have a rule to allow them to charge, they're still allowed to charge cause of how it's worded?..
Correct. The rule states that this unit is allowed to Charge. The IC is part of this unit.
If it just stated, "models may Charge after arriving from Deep Strike Reserve", or if the unit is not mentioned at all, than the IC would be left out of being able to Charge like the rest of the unit unless he also had this rule.
In order for an IC to be included with a unit's special rule, either from its Datasheet, or its detachment, it must specifically mention as affecting the unit and not indicate that all models must have this rule to benefit.
Some homework for you. Review the rules for Relentless, Slow and Purposeful, Fleet, and Counter Attack and note the differences. Each one has different interactions on how an IC and a unit interact with these rules. See if you can identify what those interactions are and how they apply to the original question of this thread. I don't have any expectation of response or lack of response on this, I am just trying to help you grasp this interaction.
The rule states that this unit is allowed to Charge. The IC is part of this unit.
It states a "Unit Of Vanguard Veterans from this formation". I can't find anything to prove that a character joining Unit A = Unit A. It's just a unit. But not Unit A.
In other words, there's no rule to state that: Vanguard vet squad + IC = Vanguard vet squad.
The closest thing i can find in the brb is only enough to clarify that: Vanguard vet squad + IC = Squad.
"Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units."
From 'Datasheets' in Codex: Space Marines:
"4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."
From the Vanguard Veteran Squad datasheet (the party that corresponds to 4. Unit Name as explained in the 'Datasheets' section) in Codex: Space Marines:
"VANGUARD VETERAN SQUAD"
Vanguard Veteran Squad is the name of the unit. If you were to point to the unit which the joined Independent Character counts as part of for all rules purposes, you would be pointing at the Vanguard Veteran Squad.
He counts as part of the Vanguard Veteran Squad for all rules purposes.
So, basically, the consensus is that Character doesn't have a rule to charge after the deepstrike because IC don't get rules from the squad. But he can charge because he's a unit that can charge.
So...he's an IC and thus doesn't get affected by the rule => can't but he's in a unit with a rule that allows to charge => can. What next? Roll d6?
koooaei wrote: So, basically, the consensus is that Character doesn't have a rule to charge after the deepstrike because IC don't get rules from the squad. But he can charge because he's a unit that can charge.
So...he's an IC and thus doesn't get affected by the rule => can't but he's in a unit with a rule that allows to charge => can. What next? Roll d6?
Stop changing the rules
The rules state the rule is not conferred. It states nothing about not affecting or not benefiting the IC.
The IC benefits from the rule. The IC does not HAVE the rule
koooaei wrote: So, basically, the consensus is that Character doesn't have a rule to charge after the deepstrike because IC don't get rules from the squad. But he can charge because he's a unit that can charge.
So...he's an IC and thus doesn't get affected by the rule => can't but he's in a unit with a rule that allows to charge => can. What next? Roll d6?
Not quite. The IC does not get the rule, but the unit has a rule that grants an effect to the unit. This effect is given to the entire unit, of which the IC is a part of.
If there is a rule a unit has called Dirty Play that says a unit gets Muddy when it plays in the dirt until it gets clean, and the Muddy rule states a model gains Hatred while affected. IC without the Dirty Play rule is in a unit with Dirty Play that plays in the dirt. The IC would still have the Muddy rule applied to them if the unit plays in the dirt, and so would gain Hatred for the duration of the Dirty Play rule.
What about a deepstriking squad and an outflanking IC? If they all become a unit, than it still counts as deepstruck and can still charge? Ic stopped being a unit of his own and the resulting squad just counts as deepstruck?
koooaei wrote: What about a deepstriking squad and an outflanking IC? If they all become a unit, than it still counts as deepstruck and can still charge? Ic stopped being a unit of his own and the resulting squad just counts as deepstruck?
If an Outflanking IC joined the unit which just Deep Striked in, then no, it would not work unless the IC also has a rule allowing him to Charge when arriving from Outflank. The IC was not with the unit when the rule triggered its affect. And the IC would be denied the ability to Charge since it just Arrived from Reserves (and not Deep Strike Reserves).
koooaei wrote: What about a deepstriking squad and an outflanking IC? If they all become a unit, than it still counts as deepstruck and can still charge? Ic stopped being a unit of his own and the resulting squad just counts as deepstruck?
If an Outflanking IC joined the unit which just Deep Striked in, then no, it would not work unless the IC also has a rule allowing him to Charge when arriving from Outflank. The IC was not with the unit when the rule triggered its affect. And the IC would be denied the ability to Charge since it just Arrived from Reserves (and not Deep Strike Reserves).
Wait, what? The ic in deepstriking formation also doesn't have allowance the rule. But as he's a part of the unit that has, he can, right?..
Means i can deepstrike a unit, than join a outflanking character, he becomes a part of the unit that deepstruck and still has allowance to charge because he's part of the unit.
That's how this logic works. He's now part of the unit. He stops being a unit of his own, he's just a Unit X now where unit X are vanguard vets. By this logic it doesn't matter what an IC was doing. He's a part of the unit for all rules purposes lol. Can cheeze however you want
koooaei wrote: What about a deepstriking squad and an outflanking IC? If they all become a unit, than it still counts as deepstruck and can still charge? Ic stopped being a unit of his own and the resulting squad just counts as deepstruck?
If an Outflanking IC joined the unit which just Deep Striked in, then no, it would not work unless the IC also has a rule allowing him to Charge when arriving from Outflank. The IC was not with the unit when the rule triggered its affect. And the IC would be denied the ability to Charge since it just Arrived from Reserves (and not Deep Strike Reserves).
Wait, what? The ic in deepstriking formation also doesn't have allowance the rule. But as he's a part of the unit that has, he can, right?..
Means i can deepstrike a unit, than join a outflanking character, he becomes a part of the unit that deepstruck and still has allowance to charge because he's part of the unit.
That's how this logic works. He's now part of the unit. He stops being a unit of his own, he's just a Unit X now where unit X are vanguard vets. By this logic it doesn't matter what an IC was doing. He's a part of the unit for all rules purposes lol. Can cheeze however you want
Timing. That's what you're ignoring.
The rule triggers when deep striking, basically creating a lingering effect on the unit. What do lingering effects do when you join an IC to the affected unit after the effect triggered? What happens if you join an IC to a unit and THEN trigger such an effect?
koooaei wrote: What about a deepstriking squad and an outflanking IC? If they all become a unit, than it still counts as deepstruck and can still charge? Ic stopped being a unit of his own and the resulting squad just counts as deepstruck?
If an Outflanking IC joined the unit which just Deep Striked in, then no, it would not work unless the IC also has a rule allowing him to Charge when arriving from Outflank. The IC was not with the unit when the rule triggered its affect. And the IC would be denied the ability to Charge since it just Arrived from Reserves (and not Deep Strike Reserves).
Wait, what? The ic in deepstriking formation also doesn't have allowance the rule. But as he's a part of the unit that has, he can, right?..
Means i can deepstrike a unit, than join a outflanking character, he becomes a part of the unit that deepstruck and still has allowance to charge because he's part of the unit.
That's how this logic works. He's now part of the unit. He stops being a unit of his own, he's just a Unit X now where unit X are vanguard vets. By this logic it doesn't matter what an IC was doing. He's a part of the unit for all rules purposes lol. Can cheeze however you want
The rule lets you assault after deepstrike.
There are 2 rules stopping this unit assaulting now.
1. assaulting after deepstrike.
2. assaulting after outflank.
You only have permission to ignore 1 of these restrictions, the deepstrike one. So you would still be forbidden from assaulting that turn.
If the character say moved up on a bike to join them after deepstriking, the unit could still deepstrike as the only rule restricting them would be 1. which they haver permission to override
Assaulting after outflank? But the UNIT didn't outflank. It deepstruck. Than an ic joined the deepstruck unit. Which still remaines a deepstruck unit and chan charge and as he's IC he follows the unit's rules now.
How's that different from charging after deepstrike?
Assaulting after outflank? But the UNIT didn't outflank. It deepstruck. Than an ic joined the deepstruck unit. Which still remaines a deepstruck unit and chan charge and as he's IC he follows the unit's rules now.
How's that different from charging after deepstrike?
Please explain to me why timing has "nothing to do" with this. And you might wanna read up on what lingering effects are and how they're treated when an IC is joining or leaving a unit.
GW has, recently, and in particular with Formation (Detachment) special rules, begun writing the rather unhelpful, "units with X get to do Y".
'Normally' special rules fall into three categories:
1. "Models with X get to do Y"
2. "Units containing at least one model with X get to do Y"
3. "Units comprised entirely of models with X get to do Y"
When presented with "units with X get to do Y", some are interpreting that to be equivalent to, "units containing at least one model with X get to do Y". But the other 'normal' ways to interpret "units with X get to do Y" are just as valid.
For my contribution to the OP's question: It seems that not enough importance is being given to the 'units from this detachment' portion of the rule. THE IC is not a unit from the detachment (inarguable prior to deployment). What happens to the IC when it is attached to the unit that IS from the detachment? Does it suddenly come from the detachment in question? No, this is absurd. Does it benefit from the detachment special rules (via the unit it is joined to)? This is the key question. So far as I'm concerned, "units with X get to do Y" does not explicitly state that an IC (non-faction/non-detachment) benefits, so it doesn't.
Wasn't there a rule, not sure if I'm thinking about outdated rules, that stated that Units only benefited from Formation rules if and only if every Model in the Unit was from said Formation?
That may have been a 6th thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just read the Detachments/formations section. That rule does not exist in 7th.
DCannon4Life wrote: GW has, recently, and in particular with Formation (Detachment) special rules, begun writing the rather unhelpful, "units with X get to do Y".
'Normally' special rules fall into three categories:
1. "Models with X get to do Y"
2. "Units containing at least one model with X get to do Y"
3. "Units comprised entirely of models with X get to do Y"
When presented with "units with X get to do Y", some are interpreting that to be equivalent to, "units containing at least one model with X get to do Y". But the other 'normal' ways to interpret "units with X get to do Y" are just as valid.
For my contribution to the OP's question: It seems that not enough importance is being given to the 'units from this detachment' portion of the rule. THE IC is not a unit from the detachment (inarguable prior to deployment). What happens to the IC when it is attached to the unit that IS from the detachment? Does it suddenly come from the detachment in question? No, this is absurd. Does it benefit from the detachment special rules (via the unit it is joined to)? This is the key question. So far as I'm concerned, "units with X get to do Y" does not explicitly state that an IC (non-faction/non-detachment) benefits, so it doesn't.
Cheers!
Stubborn doesn't mention ICs explicitly either. So it doesn't work for ICs, right?
Assaulting after outflank? But the UNIT didn't outflank. It deepstruck. Than an ic joined the deepstruck unit. Which still remaines a deepstruck unit and chan charge and as he's IC he follows the unit's rules now.
How's that different from charging after deepstrike?
Review Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects in the Independent Character rule, then show me where timing does not matter.
DCannon4Life wrote:GW has, recently, and in particular with Formation (Detachment) special rules, begun writing the rather unhelpful, "units with X get to do Y".
'Normally' special rules fall into three categories:
1. "Models with X get to do Y"
2. "Units containing at least one model with X get to do Y"
3. "Units comprised entirely of models with X get to do Y"
When presented with "units with X get to do Y", some are interpreting that to be equivalent to, "units containing at least one model with X get to do Y". But the other 'normal' ways to interpret "units with X get to do Y" are just as valid.
For my contribution to the OP's question: It seems that not enough importance is being given to the 'units from this detachment' portion of the rule. THE IC is not a unit from the detachment (inarguable prior to deployment). What happens to the IC when it is attached to the unit that IS from the detachment? Does it suddenly come from the detachment in question? No, this is absurd. Does it benefit from the detachment special rules (via the unit it is joined to)? This is the key question. So far as I'm concerned, "units with X get to do Y" does not explicitly state that an IC (non-faction/non-detachment) benefits, so it doesn't.
Cheers!
There is no such rule that supports this though. In fact it is counter to the rule that the IC counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes. This does not exclude ICs joined to another Detachment, nor do the Ally rules exclude it.
ICs do not have their unit identity recognized if they have joined another unit. This allows it to be untargetable by itself when being shot, it is considered as part of the unit when determining if it can use Fleet or Deep Strike, and it is considered part of the unit when a rule affects the unit.
Many tournaments do House Rule against this, but these decisions are as often made on a perception of balance, not on what the rules actually state. Since it is their House, this is fine.
Assaulting after outflank? But the UNIT didn't outflank. It deepstruck. Than an ic joined the deepstruck unit. Which still remaines a deepstruck unit and chan charge and as he's IC he follows the unit's rules now.
How's that different from charging after deepstrike?
The IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes. When the rule mentions the unit being allowed to assault the turn they deepstrike it works fine.
However you are still subject to assault restrictions eg. You cannot charge if you go to ground (say from interceptor) despite the fact that you deep struck.
One model is restricted from charging as they arrived from outflank, you charge at the speed of the slowest model, therefore if a model can't charge, the unit can't charge.
The unit as a whole(including IC) is allowed to ignore the restrictions for charging after deepstrike .
They are still subject to normal charge restrictions such as the model arriving from outflank.
You dont have a blanket permission to assault as long as you deepstruck that turn.
The model still arrived from outflank, just as if the model was suffering from strikedown, he is still under effects that slow the unit down, he doesn't lose any status he inherited just because he joined a unit and is part of it.
Well, gentlemen. We've found a hole in rules. Prepare for vets + Lib conclave and sang priests charging from deepstrike without scatter re-rolling everything, auto-arriving when they want.
koooaei wrote: Well, gentlemen. We've found a hole in rules. Prepare for vets + Lib conclave and sang priests charging from deepstrike without scatter re-rolling everything, auto-arriving when they want.
Doesn't sound like a hole, just really powerful and painful. That isn't even new, really.
Unfortunatley this doesnt ignore the fact that the Special Rule in question doesnt say it confers to the Independent Character so no you cannot do it. Its pretty cut and dry:
-Independent Character joins a unit he counts as part of the unit.
-The Special Rules of the unit do not confer to the IC unless specifically stated.
It makes no sense that someone who was not purchased in the origional Formation would get a free set of Special Rules by joining it so no, IC's do not benifit from Formation Special rules unless specifically stated, Stubborn is just an example (a poor one i admit but its GW writing we are talking about) but other rules such as Shrouded and Stealth where it specifically states "effects all models in the unit".
gmaleron wrote: Unfortunatley this doesnt ignore the fact that the Special Rule in question doesnt say it confers to the Independent Character so no you cannot do it. Its pretty cut and dry:
-Independent Character joins a unit he counts as part of the unit.
-The Special Rules of the unit do not confer to the IC unless specifically stated.
It makes no sense that someone who was not purchased in the origional Formation would get a free set of Special Rules by joining it so no, IC's do not benifit from Formation Special rules unless specifically stated, Stubborn is just an example (a poor one i admit but its GW writing we are talking about) but other rules such as Shrouded and Stealth where it specifically states "effects all models in the unit".
Alright, so Stubborn doesn't work between regular units and ICs since anything that doesn't say "affects all models in the units" doesn't work with ICs according to you. Including Shrouded. And Stealth. Because BOTH say "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1(2) point(s) better than normal." which clearly doesn't mention ICs nor does it use "all models in the unit" instead of "A unit".
Nice house rule, but that's it.
And it was explained multiple times by now that not the actual Special Rule is transfered to the attached IC but effect the SR creates simply targets the entire unit. Kinda like Soul Blaze does.
nekooni wrote: Alright, so Stubborn doesn't work between regular units and ICs since anything that doesn't say "affects all models in the units" doesn't work with ICs according to you. Including Shrouded. And Stealth. Because BOTH say "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1(2) point(s) better than normal." which clearly doesn't mention ICs nor does it use "all models in the unit" instead of "A unit".
Nice house rule, but that's it.
And it was explained multiple times by now that not the actual Special Rule is transfered to the attached IC but effect the SR creates simply targets the entire unit. Kinda like Soul Blaze does.
To clarify word for word from the Rulebook:
"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
According to this it clearly states that if the Special Rule in question doesnt say it effects Independent Characters or all models in the unit then the IC cannot benifit from it. It is not a "House Rule" as you so claim, it is the actual rule found in the rulebook so anything else, such as allowing IC's the Special Rule would be the "House Rule". Also the fact that it says "A Unit" would affect the IC because he counts as part of the unit and this Special Rule states that all models in the unit are affected, which would include the IC that is attached to it Its pretty cut and dry. Also unit is made up of all the models in the particular unit so they are all one and the same.
nekooni wrote: Alright, so Stubborn doesn't work between regular units and ICs since anything that doesn't say "affects all models in the units" doesn't work with ICs according to you. Including Shrouded. And Stealth. Because BOTH say "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1(2) point(s) better than normal." which clearly doesn't mention ICs nor does it use "all models in the unit" instead of "A unit".
Nice house rule, but that's it.
And it was explained multiple times by now that not the actual Special Rule is transfered to the attached IC but effect the SR creates simply targets the entire unit. Kinda like Soul Blaze does.
To clarify word for word from the Rulebook:
"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
According to this it clearly states that if the Special Rule in question doesnt say it effects Independent Characters or all models in the unit then the IC cannot benifit from it. It is not a "House Rule" as you so claim, it is the actual rule found in the rulebook so anything else, such as allowing IC's the Special Rule would be the "House Rule". Also the fact that it says "A Unit" would affect the IC because he counts as part of the unit and this Special Rule states that all models in the unit are affected, which would include the IC that is attached to it Its pretty cut and dry. Also unit is made up of all the models in the particular unit so they are all one and the same.
First of all, you're contradicting yourself here. Either "A unit" or "Name of unit" is sufficient to share with ICs or it isn't. How do you explain that it works in one case and not in another? That differenciation is what I am calling a house rule.
Then: To my knowledge Shrouded, Stealth and Stubborn never say that they affect "models", they affect the unit as a whole. Please show me the line of rules text you're refering to.
I'd also like proof for the bolded part of this statement:
if the Special Rule in question doesnt say it effects Independent Characters or all models in the unit then the IC cannot benifit from it
And since you completely missed that argument apparently: Not the Special Rule is transfered, it is just that the IC benefits from the SR since the SR targets the unit the IC is part of. JUST like Shrouded does, just like stubborn does.
Otherwise Soul Blaze - which also in itself is a Special Rule that does NOT mention ICs or anything that you claim is required - would be unable to affect attached ICs. Yet the IC section clearly states that Soul Blaze , if triggered while the IC is part of the unit, is also affecting the IC. Neither the IC nor the unit "gain" the Soul Blaze Special Rule, though, so the IC rule of "SRs are not transfered" is not broken. Same with what we're arguing about here.
*edit* And no, you don't get to claim that ALL the examples given by GW in the IC chapter are "bad examples" since none of them work with your way of interpreting the rules. Stubborn is specifically named as an example, and so is Soul Blaze.
So Soul Blaze has a specific section where it clearly states that IC's are affected by it, why is it being used as an example then? Also dont see where you are getting "name of a unit" or "the unit" from so i am still confused what you mean by "house rule". And you are misunderstanding me, let me break it down:
From the Rule Book:
Formations: "Instead of including a FOC the Army List entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
-So a Formation has to use the specific Army List entries that it has listed on it.
-The Rules found in Formations are listed as "Special Rules"
-According to the paragraph that defnies IC's and Special Rules listed above the Special Rules in question have to specifically say they effect the ICs.
The reason I mention if the Special Rule in question states that all models in the unit are affected in some way shape or form (I was not trying to say it word for word form the rulebook) is because at that point it would then effect the IC because for all intents and purposes he counts as part of the unit.
And I never claimed that all examples by GW were bad so please stop putting words in my mouth it accomplishes nothing.
The rule does not have to be conferred in order for an IC to benefit from the rule. You keep using the two as if they are interchangeable, Theyre not
Your argument has been demolished every time it comes up, in the same way every time. It has literally no legs. Also, noone really cared about rules such as FNP from painboyz affecting ICs, its only since formations such as Skyhammer came in that this panicked reaction has occured.
gmaleron wrote: So Soul Blaze has a specific section where it clearly states that IC's are affected by it, why is it being used as an example then?
Please provide a quote, as I have asked you to do in two other instances already. there is no specific section stating what you claim in the Soul Blaze rule within the Special Rules section of the Englisch 40kBRB nor is it in the German 40kBRB. The only instance where it IS mentioned is in the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects section where it is used as an example for how ongoing effects - just like the rule in question here produces - are treated.
The reason I mention if the Special Rule in question states that all models in the unit are affected in some way shape or form (I was not trying to say it word for word form the rulebook) is because at that point it would then effect the IC because for all intents and purposes he counts as part of the unit.
Provide a quote. None of the Special Rules you provided as examples state that they affect all models in the unit. They affect the unit, just like the rules in question here do.
And I never claimed that all examples by GW were bad so please stop putting words in my mouth it accomplishes nothing.
You claimed it for Stubborn when it was pointed out that it doesn't actually mention ICs, and since I brought up Soul Blaze I just wanted to make sure you do not use the same excuse there.
Please provide a quote, as I have asked you to do in two other instances already. there is no specific section stating what you claim in the Soul Blaze rule within the Special Rules section of the Englisch 40kBRB nor is it in the German 40kBRB. The only instance where it IS mentioned is in the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects section where it is used as an example for how ongoing effects - just like the rule in question here produces - are treated.
I currrently am away from my Rulebook as I had to head into work now but once I get home I will be able to. And you brought up Soul Blaze to begin with, if it was part of "ongoing effects" instead of Special Rules and how IC's interact with them why bring it up in the first place?
Provide a quote. None of the Special Rules you provided as examples state that they affect all models in the unit. They affect the unit, just like the rules in question here do.
A unit is made up of all the models in the unit, otherwise the unit wouldnt exist, its the same thing.
Also you failed to address the points I made from what was actually written in the Rule Book before I left for work. According to RAW unless the Special Rules from the Formation specifically state that they effect Independent Characters that are taken outside the Formation then they cannot benifit from them as they are listed under Special Rules as per the section of Special Rules and IC's.
Please provide a quote, as I have asked you to do in two other instances already. there is no specific section stating what you claim in the Soul Blaze rule within the Special Rules section of the Englisch 40kBRB nor is it in the German 40kBRB. The only instance where it IS mentioned is in the Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects section where it is used as an example for how ongoing effects - just like the rule in question here produces - are treated.
I currrently am away from my Rulebook as I am working right now but once I get home I will be able to. And you brought up Soul Blaze to begin with, if it was part of "ongoing effects" instead of Special Rules and how IC's interact with them why bring it up in the first place?
Provide a quote. None of the Special Rules you provided as examples state that they affect all models in the unit. They affect the unit, just like the rules in question here do.
A unit is made up of all the models in the unit, otherwise the unit wouldnt exist, its the same thing.
Also you failed to address the points I made from what was actually written in the Rule Book before I left for work and have not brought up a counter point to said rules I showed. Bottom line, IC's cannot benifit from a Formations Special Rule if they are not part of it to begin with. The paragraph stating the interaction between IC's and Special Rules clearly indicates that.
You're rewording and by that changing the meaning of the rules.
The rules do NOT state that an IC cannot benefit (= profit) from SRs unless mentioned, it merely says that the SR itself cannot be confered (=copied, transfered) to the IC and vice versa. That's the counterargument which has been brought up multiple times and you've ignored it.
I'm asking you to provide quotes because I do have a rulebook with me, and I can't find the lines of text that would support your claims on how the rules are written or what they say.
It might be advisable to discuss rules as written with a copy of the fething written rules nearby instead of just making them up as you go, don't you think?
Not making anything up, that "quote" is listed under the Independent Characters section on the right hand side of the page detailing IC's and Special Characters, maybe you should fething read? The same goes with what I listed for Formations. You have not demolished anything of the sort, you have yet to provide any ample proof that IC's can indeed benifit from Special Rules if they just join a Formation. Claiming you are right without any proof doesnt make you right, you need to calm down and stop throwing a temper tantrum just because someone disagrees with you, its a game grow up.
I on the other hand, going off RAW as listed with Independent Characters and how they interact with Special Rules do not need ot provide anything else because you have yet to disprove it, its simple yet again:
From the Rule Book:
-Formations: "Instead of including a FOC the Army List entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
-"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
-As is listed under Formations only the Army List Entries listed on it are mentioned to benefit from the Special Rules of the Formation.
koooaei wrote: But ish't Conferring a rule = Benefiting from it?
They are two different things, that's the point. Look up the words, it helped me a lot to translate both to my native language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: Not making anything up, that "quote" is listed under the Independent Characters section on the right hand side of the page detailing IC's and Special Characters, maybe you should fething read? You have not demolished anything of the sort, you have yet to provide any ample proof that IC's can indeed benifit from Special Rules if they just join a Formation. You need to calm down and stop throwing a temper tantrum just because someone disagrees with you, its a game grow up.
The rules do not say that IC cannot benefit. It is as simple as that.
I'm not throwing a temper tantrum, but it is annoying to discuss written rules when one side does not have said written rules and keeps making claims that once checked seem to not be supported by the rulebook.
Then quote what is written under Formations and Independent Characters from the Rule Book because I copied it word for word before I left for work. Its also annoying to have someone claim they are right without providing any proof or support to their argument.
koooaei wrote: But ish't Conferring a rule = Benefiting from it?
verb (used without object), conferred, conferring.
1.
to consult together; compare opinions; carry on a discussion or deliberation.
verb (used with object), conferred, conferring.
2.
to bestow upon as a gift, favor, honor, etc.:
to confer a degree on a graduate.
All we have is that special rules are not conferred from the squad upon a character. It can mean that he can still "benefit" from rules without getting them...sounds odd...via unit or that he doesn't get anything as he doesn't get special rules conferred upon him from the unit.
All we have is that special rules are not conferred from the squad upon a character. It can mean that he gets the benefits without the special rule via unit or that he doesn't get anything as he doesn't get sr conferred upon him from the unit.
The exception for this would be if the Character in Question was part of the Formation to begin, it makes no sense that you could add a random character from outside the Formation and give them the Formations Special Rules. God forbid having Marneus Calgar join the Skyhammer Assault Formation, makes absolutely 0 sense. The fact the the rules for Formations are listed as "Special Rules" ensure that nothing outside of the Formation, including IC's could benifit from it thanks to RAW.
koooaei wrote: RAW doesn't make sence from the get go, so...
In this case it is pretty clear cut thanks to how IC's interact with Special Rules, GW does have a reputation for writing some things poorly however I can agree with that.
nekooni wrote: I'm asking you to provide quotes because I do have a rulebook with me, and I can't find the lines of text that would support your claims on how the rules are written or what they say.
It might be advisable to discuss rules as written with a copy of the fething written rules nearby instead of just making them up as you go, don't you think?
It goes both ways with nekooni as well, might want to quote him to, am more then happy to have a discussion on the matter however immatuirty and attempts to insult my intelligence dont help the issue. Ill be cool if he decides to be.
Could yo please show where "confer" and "benefit" have the same exact meaning? (British English)
If not, could you please stop using them as if they are the same word?
I do not have to "have" a rule to "benefit" from the rule. An IC with Stealth joining a unit means everyone in the unit "benefits" from the rule, while never actually possessing it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Could yo please show where "confer" and "benefit" have the same exact meaning? (British English)
If not, could you please stop using them as if they are the same word?
I do not have to "have" a rule to "benefit" from the rule. An IC with Stealth joining a unit means everyone in the unit "benefits" from the rule, while never actually possessing it.
I never claimed that they had the same meaning so I fail to understand what you are referring to?
And you are correct you do not have to have the rule to benifit from a Special rule, however that Special Rule has to state that it effects IC's (or as mentioned states that it provides the rules benifit to the unit in its specific form) as per how IC's interact with Special Rules in the Rulebook.
"You have not demolished anything of the sort, you have yet to provide any ample proof that IC's can indeed benifit (sic) from Special Rules if they just join a Formation"
"Formations: "Instead of including a FOC the Army List entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."
Yet you then mangled that quote to say:
"-As is listed under Formations only the Army List Entries listed on it are mentioned to benefit from the Special Rules of the Formation. "
You clearly conflate, multiple times, gain (aka confer in thius context) and benefit. Similarly, here you ignore that the unit gains the rule. the IC is anormal member of the unit, so the unit still gains the rule.
the ACTUAL rule, as posted, makes no mention of "effect". You literally just made that up
ALL the Special Rules and ICs rule states is when an IC is conferred the rule. Nothing more. Not "effect", not "benefit", JUST "confer"
Your argument is the same as every time this comes up: fatally flawed, as it confuses and conflates "conferred" with "benefit", and somehow thinks the two are the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As another example - see my under lines
nekooni wrote: Alright, so Stubborn doesn't work between regular units and ICs since anything that doesn't say "affects all models in the units" doesn't work with ICs according to you. Including Shrouded. And Stealth. Because BOTH say "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1(2) point(s) better than normal." which clearly doesn't mention ICs nor does it use "all models in the unit" instead of "A unit".
Nice house rule, but that's it.
And it was explained multiple times by now that not the actual Special Rule is transfered to the attached IC but effect the SR creates simply targets the entire unit. Kinda like Soul Blaze does.
To clarify word for word from the Rulebook:
"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
According to this it clearly states that if the Special Rule in question doesnt say it effects Independent Characters or all models in the unit then the IC cannot benifit (sic) from it. It is not a "House Rule" as you so claim, it is the actual rule found in the rulebook so anything else, such as allowing IC's the Special Rule would be the "House Rule". Also the fact that it says "A Unit" would affect the IC because he counts as part of the unit and this Special Rule states that all models in the unit are affected, which would include the IC that is attached to it Its pretty cut and dry. Also unit is made up of all the models in the particular unit so they are all one and the same.
The unit gains the Special Rule, however for the IC as listed in the Rulebook clearly states:
"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
For all your confering, effect ect. argument it still doesnt change the fact that IC's cannot benifit from Special Rules unless it is stated in some way, shape or form and you have yet to disprove that. IC's have an additional clause to aquiring a Special Rule that they do not already come with, anyone who thinks they can add any IC to a Formation and get a free Special Rule is cheating.
gmaleron wrote: And you are correct you do not have to have the rule to benifit from a Special rule, however that Special Rule has to state that it effects IC's (or as mentioned states that it provides the rules benifit to the unit in its specific form) as per how IC's interact with Special Rules in the Rulebook.
And that is the one thing I keep pointing out that you simply refuse to accept: The rule you're refering to only limits how Special Rules can be confered (=given) to ICs. It does not state anything about the effects or benefits of Special Rules. This is why we are telling you to stop mixing "confer" and "benefit" and why we disregard your argument.
If I've offended you by telling you to bring a rulebook with you in a rather unfriendly way, I apologize for the tone I used.
Spoiler:
If you feel the need to discuss anything else related to alleged temper tantrums or the like, feel free to PM me - it really has no place in this thread.
gmaleron 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
For all your confering, effect ect. argument it still doesnt change the fact that IC's cannot benifit from Special Rules unless it is stated in some way, shape or form and you have yet to disprove that. IC's have an additional clause to aquiring a Special Rule that they do not already come with, anyone who thinks they can add any IC to a Formation and get a free Special Rule is cheating.
The rule you quoted literally only tells you about how you may or may not confer a special rule, nothing else. Please show the rule that says that ICs cannot benefit from or be affected by Special Rules, since your claim seems to be that there is such a rule. The rule you just quoted simply doesn't say that, I'm afraid.
The only thing I got offended at was the fact I had literally typed it up while looking at the Rulebook and walked out the door for work so I was not quoting inaccurate data, i apologize as well for getting snippy as well.
The paragraph I provided above covers that, I fail to see how it doesnt? According to that paragraph in the rulebook it clearly states the Special Rule itself has to be conferred (or according to the definition granted or bestowed) upon the Independent Character in order for him to use it. Now it would be the Special Rule itself to describe how or who could benifit from it depending on what the Special Rule entails in its description. So when breaking it down:
A clearer explanation if I am failing to do so above:
-Specific units from the Army List Entry need to be used for a Formation
-Formations have additional Special Rules
-IC's have to follow certain Guidelines for Special Rules, according to that paragraph the Special Rule has to be conffered upon the Independent Character
-You look at the specific Special Rule (whatever it may be) to see if the IC has the option to receive the benifit of that Special Rule
-If it does not say something along the lines of the IC can recieve the benifit then only the unit itself with the Special Rule can use it.
RAW it seems pretty clear cut to me, also makes 0 sense to believe that characters such as Marneus Calgar, Dante, Farsight ect. could jump into a Formation that they are not apart of to begin with and recieve free Special Rules.
gmaleron wrote: The paragraph I provided above covers that, I fail to see how it doesnt? According to that paragraph in the rulebook it clearly states the Special Rule itself has to be conferred (or according to the definition granted or bestowed) upon the Independent Character in order for him to use it.
But the rule never says that an IC must have a Special Rule for it to be affected by it. It only tells you under which circumstances Special Rules are or aren't confered to ICs.
It never says that a model / IC must have a Special Rule confered upon them for it to be affected by the Special Rule. You do not need to have the Blind SR for it to affect you, nor do you have to have the Shrouded SR to be affected by it. This is true for ANY Special Rule per default as the ruleset would simply fall apart.
All you need is to match the criteria/trigger of the Special Rule: For Blind to affect you, you have to be hit by someone with the Blind SR. For Shrouded to affect you, your unit must contain at least one model that actually has the rule. For Relentless to affect you, the model itself must have the SR.
The rule in question can be presented as: When a unit of Veterans comes in from Deep Strike reserves, it may charge on the turn they arrive. The unit clearly includes any IC that is attached to the unit. And since the rule says (not literally, but very clearly refering to ) the unit gains this benefit, the IC will also be affected. The IC does not, however, have the Special Rule confered upon him.
Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that. I understand what you are trying to present but IC''s cannot join a Formation and get the Formations Special rule, your example of the Veterans being able to assault on the turn they deepstrike is a Special Rule that allows them to.
At that point you have to look at IC's and Special Rules where that paragraph comes in. And if it is like the Sky hammer Assault Formation where it specifically states the Assault Squads as the beneficiaries of the Special Rule then no IC can join and benefit from it unless it states he can. I'm sorry but you are not going to convince me that any random IC can join any Formation and benefit from the rule, that paragraph shows the rule that stills limit it. Thankfully GW and the tournament fields such as ITC agree with me, would be way to many shenanigans and RAW it clearly is that way as well.
Do you not see it yet? Yet again you start off talking about "confer" - the word which appears in the rule - yet talk about "benefit" later. A word which has a different meaning. That does not appear in the rule.
You're wrong. This is beyond the pale now - you have failed to show confer = benefit, you have failed to show that benefit is prohibited, you have failed to show how IDENTICAL RULES are somehow different - shrouded and stealth, identical to skyhammers rule in how models / units benefit - and you keep ignoring where your flaws have been exposed, time and time again
Lol ive proven my point just fine and if you care to read I showed the difference between confer and benefit farther up the page. And i have proven it repeatedly, just because you refuse to believe it or continually ignore what i say is not my problem, claiming your right just because with 0 facts to back it up doesn't make you right. The benefit is provided if it is detailed in the particular Special Rules description and if it doesnt say anything about any added on IC they dont get the rule its that easy.
You are trying to nit pick specific words and searching for loopholes while I have presented RAW proof and evidence to back it up that you have yet to disprove. Sorry you are the mistaken one with the "old and tired" argument and have proven nothing.
Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that.
Sorry I think I missed a quote. Where do the rules say this?
At that point you have to look at IC's and Special Rules where that paragraph comes in. And if it is like the Sky hammer Assault Formation where it specifically states the Assault Squads as the beneficiaries of the Special Rule then no IC can join and benefit from it unless it states he can. I'm sorry but you are not going to convince me that any random IC can join any Formation and benefit from the rule, that paragraph shows the rule that stills limit it. Thankfully GW and the tournament fields such as ITC agree with me, would be way to many shenanigans and RAW it clearly is that way as well.
The same thing again do you have a quote to support that ICS need to be specifically called out to benefit from or use a Special Rules granted to their unit?
You are aware that ITCbowl is not Warhammer 40,000 right? It is let's makes up a huge host of rules to support the armies the organisers play and nerfed the ones they don't. We'll run vote campaigns to pass this off as not us making them up honest. These campaigns are so biased and filled is clear inaccuracies that political parties would be embarrassed by them...
I understand ITC does change some of the rules however the vast majority touch on particular units and formations with the majority of the core rules intact. Granted it's not the best example however when it comes to rules they know they'really talking about. It is an assumption, however assumptions have been listed above for the counter argument as well.
The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.
Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.
This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.
gmaleron wrote: I understand ITC does change some of the rules however the vast majority touch on particular units and formations with the majority of the core rules intact. Granted it's not the best example however when it comes to rules they know they'really talking about. It is an assumption, however assumptions have been listed above for the counter argument as well.
The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.
Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.
Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from.
If you think the ITC guys have a clue about the rules read Reecius' article about coordinated firepower or their ruling on Psychic Shriek. The guys are absolutely clueless and driven by a need to protect their meta rather than actually worrying in anyway about what the actual rules are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.
So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from
It would depend on the particular special rule in order to answer this question.
So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?
Why would they? The troop choice does not have its special rules affected by the independent character unless the independent character has a special rule that specifically states it affects the unit. They don't share special rules unless the special rule in question specifically states so.
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from
It would depend on the particular special rule in order to answer this question.
So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?
Why would they? The troop choice does not have its special rules affected by the independent character unless the independent character has a special rule that specifically states it affects the unit. They don't share special rules unless the special rule in question specifically states so.
So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?
In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also why would the special rule be required when you've made this claim?
Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that.
I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.
FlingitNow wrote: So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?
In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.
Correct but TROOP choices from a CAD do not have a special clause like an Independent Character does when dealing with Special Rules. The way it is worded in the rule book (which I am reading out of right now and that paragraph is word for word) in the paragraph above covers that. The TROOP choice still has Objective Secured but the IC attached to the unit does not because the Special Rule Objective Secured does not carry over to the IC in the Special Rules description, its that easy.
I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.
According to the counter argument there is no paragraph, they are basing it off the lack of the phrase "the IC benefits" from the Special Rule or not but as gungo mentioned it clearly states under Detachments Command Benefits that they cannot do so.
Ob sec actually has two rules wording. The original wording in the brb which states only troops. And the recent wording used in current formations that state units. The troop clarification has been superseded imho.
Furthermore models always retain thier unit datasheet rules. An HQ independant character is still an HQ model. If a rule gives you an extra victory point for killing an HQ you would still get the victory point regardless of which unit the IC is attached too.
Technically the definition of benefit doesn't exist in the rulebook. If an HQ is within 3in of an objective and no other model from his ob sec unit is within 3in. And there is an enemy model within 3in. I would say he does contest the obj. However I believe there is a difference between the generic term unit and a specific unit name such as when the rules are written to specifically call out an exact squad name and not say unit for a reason. This is why rules like stubborn use the generic unit term and rules like skyhammer or the ravenguard one uses the specific unit name.
However I don't need to argue these sementics since General concensus agrees with me and nearly every rules clarification body don't share rules with IC unless it specifically states they gain the rules. Oddly just how the brb states it.
gungo wrote: However I don't need to argue these sementics since General concensus agrees with me and nearly every rules clarification body don't share rules with IC unless it specifically states they gain the rules. Oddly just how the brb states it.
So only Stubborn? Since that is the only one that we are told specifically gets shared?
Gungo you believe that there is a difference between a rule that refers to merely the unit as opposed to a rule that refers to that unit's name? Do you have any rules support for this?
There is no rules definition of benefit and our argument does not require one. The rules are written in English so we are using English. A rule stating X can have or gain Y, isn't the same as a rule saying X can't use or benefit from Y.
For instance let's say I am a spoiled 12 year old whose parents will buy me anything I want. I can use money to get anything I want but I don't have any money. Now let's say I use that money to buy myself a car. I now have a car but am still unable to use it myself. Conflating conferring/gaining/having with using/benefitting from/taking advantage of etc is not English and not supported by the rules unless they specifically define those things as the same.
FlingitNow wrote: So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?
In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.
Correct but TROOP choices from a CAD do not have a special clause like an Independent Character does when dealing with Special Rules. The way it is worded in the rule book (which I am reading out of right now and that paragraph is word for word) in the paragraph above covers that. The TROOP choice still has Objective Secured but the IC attached to the unit does not because the Special Rule Objective Secured does not carry over to the IC in the Special Rules description, its that easy.
I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.
According to the counter argument there is no paragraph, they are basing it off the lack of the phrase "the IC benefits" from the Special Rule or not but as gungo mentioned it clearly states under Detachments Command Benefits that they cannot do so.
So do you have the quote or not? You made a claim I've asked you for the quote please. You can either say that your claim was false and you don't have a quote to support it. Or provide the quote. Failing either of these two actions is very impolite and will not help progress the discussion.
Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
So according to this:
-Formations have a specific army list entry that they have to choose from and those specific units gain a number of special rules
-A Formation is type of DETACHMENT
-Any Character taken outside the Formation would belong to A DIFFERENT DETACHMENT
-According to the rule above he CANNOT BELONG TO MORE THEN ONE DETACHMENT and cannot gain another Detachments Command Benefits.
-Command Benefits list the Special Rules or Benefits for that particular Detachment.
This alone proves that you cannot take an IC From outside the Formation and run him with the Formation to get their Special Rules.
gungo wrote: This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
Again: Quotes, please.
3) Command Benefits
This lists any additional bonuses or special rules that apply to some, or all, of the units in this Detachment.
Nope
As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.
Nope
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.
Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.
That were the three most relevant lines from the BRB I was able to find and none of these seem to support your claim.
Spoiler:
The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.
If you want to know what the RAW is, thats one discussion. If you want to know HIWPI or what the ITC says or what the RAI might be, that's an entirely different discussion. Just because everyone counts a ML1 Brotherhood of Psykers with an attached ML1 Psyker as 2 Warp Charges doesn't mean that that's supported by the rules. It's just a popular house rule (which I also use).
I could also accuse you of "rules-lawyering just to nerf the SMs unique ability to charge after deep strike because reasons", but that's REALLY not what this forum is about, so lets leave that outside of this discussion. Feel free to PM me though if you feel that is needed.
@gmaleron: It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.
nekooni wrote: Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.
What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong, as clearly stated on page 118 of the rulebook:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment.
Can he join units from another Detachment? Yes he can. Can he get the Command Benefits (which include Special Rules as PER WHAT THE RULEBOOK SAYS)? No he cannot because they belong to a different Detachment. On top of that you are yet again ignoring how an Independent Character interacts with Special Rules, unless the Special Rule itself states he can benefit from it some way he does not get it, but as I have already proven it doesn't eve need to get to that point in this case.
Psst nekooni look at the post above yours
Gmaleron is spot on and quoted directly from the rule book instead of making up stuff like the majority of you guys do. Seriously the word benefit is not a rule in the brb. Why do you guys insist on making up rules that don't exist.
That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.
IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.
undermines the whole of your argument
Confer != benefit. I do not need to HAVE the rule in order to BENEFIT from the rule
This is proven. Your concession that you cannot provide a rules quote for anything you claim is noted, as you have been asked and found wanting at every turn.
nekooni wrote: Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.
What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.
quoting myself, i edited my post to answer you:
It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.
nekooni wrote: Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.
What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.
Not once joined. Building a list is when detachments are important. Once joined which is after the game starts, rules on detachments are irrelevant. If you disagree, I presume as soon as one to marine of give dies, you declare the list illegal? It's the exact same argument.
It proves nothing about your argument, as you hav a critics, misunderstanding of how the rules work. Noticed that since your lies about confer and benefit bring the same were exposed you have tried to come up with a new argument...that still fails.
gmaleron wrote: Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Well you've changed at least one word in that quote because that makes no sense in English. So you might want to have another go at that. However no one is claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 detachment other than you.
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Cool none of this disagrees with our position.
So according to this:
-Formations have a specific army list entry that they have to choose from and those specific units gain a number of special rules
-A Formation is type of DETACHMENT
-Any Character taken outside the Formation would belong to A DIFFERENT DETACHMENT
Correct and when he's join to a unit how many Detachments does that combined unit belong to? Which Detachment(s) does it belong to?
-According to the rule above he CANNOT BELONG TO MORE THEN ONE DETACHMENT and cannot gain another Detachments Command Benefits.
According to English the first half of that sentence doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify what you mean? The 2nd half seems to not be in any of your quotes. Could you provide the quote that lead to that statement?
-Command Benefits lists and Special Rules or Benefits.
This alone proves that you cannot take an IC From outside the Formation and run him with the Formation to get their Special Rules.
We all agree the IC from outside the Formation doesn't get the Formation special rules this is undisputed so why state it?
nosferatu1001 wrote: That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.
You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.
FlingitNow wrote: Well you've changed at least one word in that quote because that makes no sense in English. So you might want to have another go at that. However no one is claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 detachment other than you.
That is Word for Word from the Rulebook, so I haven't changed anything.
Cool none of this disagrees with our position.
It does, it states that the Special Rules only effect the models (all or some) in that particular Detachment.
Correct and when he's join to a unit how many Detachments does that combined unit belong to? Which Detachment(s) does it belong to?
It would be an IC from one Detachment and a unit from a Formation, this is what the argument is all about.
According to English the first half of that sentence doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify what you mean? The 2nd half seems to not be in any of your quotes. Could you provide the quote that lead to that statement?
I was referencing what I wrote above, in this case page 118
We all agree the IC from outside the Formation doesn't get the Formation special rules this is undisputed so why state it?
We all don't agree, the other people have been arguing that you CAN get the Formations Special Rules if not originally apart of the Formation.
You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.
So what Detachment(s) does the combined IC and squad unit belong to?
Can you please provide a quote to support the underlined you've stated that twice now and I can see it in the rules?
gmaleron wrote:The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.
Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.
To me you keep ignoring one key portion of that rule you keep quoting. When you bold it to highlight it, you keep skipping the important part where it provides and example. Here let me show you:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So, we have a rule that says ICs do not have the special rules conferred on them, or in other words, do not have the special rules "granted or bestowed" upon them (using the Oxford online dictionary, how much more British can you get?). Yet, it does provide an exception if it specifies as in the Stubborn Special Rule.
Well, let's review the Stubborn Special Rule for how it confers on the IC:
"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."
Hmm, no mention of conferring (or any of its synonyms) or Independent Character exists in this rule. So how then does an IC not have its Leadership negatively affected while in a Stubborn unit? He doesn't get it. It is not bestowed or conferred upon him, yet the IC rule specifically points this rule out as the IC as the example of how an IC does get the rule from a unit (or vice versa).
The only possible solution is to review another portion of a rule and the target of the Stubborn Special Rule. From Joining and Leaving a Unit in the IC rules:"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." What is the target of the Stubborn rule? A unit that is somehow carrying the rule.
Then we continue on to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which states:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared."
Which indicates that Special Rules that affect a unit that the IC has joined WILL be affected as well, even if the IC leaves the group afterward. 92% of the unique rules provided by Formations are rules that have a Trigger and an effect, such as "When a unit with this special rule arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, it may Charge in the next Assault Phase." If the IC is with the unit when this Trigger occurs, it receives the beneficial effect from the rule just as much as it would be disabled if the unit was hit with a Blind Attack. Conversely, if the IC joins after the trigger, it is not affected.
So say you have a Vanguard unit with this Formation rule to charge and you have Marneus Calgar both waiting in Deep Strike Reserves as separate units and they both roll to come in on the same turn. You Deep Strike in the Vanguard unit, and seeing an opportunity for this unit to have even more punch, you Deep Strike Marneus Calgar in to Coherency with the unit (you gutsy player you) with no Mishaps. The Vanguard unit has fulfilled the conditions of its rule and the Trigger is activated and the unit receives the benefit. Calgar is not part of this unit when it happens as he arrives later and isn't considered a member of the unit till the end of the Movement Phase. This unit will not be able to charge because Calgar does not have any permission or Special Rule effect to override the Deep Strike and Reserves conditions.
BUT, if Calgar is in the Vanguard unit from deployment and Deep Strikes with the unit, he receives the benefit of the rule since he was a member of the unit when it received the effect of the Special Rule.
Do you see the difference?
gungo wrote:This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
Actually it does, I just quoted it and have referenced it at least a couple times in this thread.
gungo wrote:There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
I'm going to say bull crap on this since those who say ICs cannot have special rules shared are ignoring the exception and how it works.
gungo wrote:And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
Now that IS bull crap. Command Benefit rules state no such thing:
"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."
I see no place where a joined IC from another detachment are specifically exempted any more than any other interaction between ICs and units. The only limitations between detachments involves the Ally relationship, and Battle Brother rules do not provide any such exemption, either. The other levels of alliance do, but that is because they prevent the joining in the first place.
gungo wrote:The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.
Define "official venue". If you mean tournaments? They are chock full of House Rules to begin with and do not represent any official release from Games Workshop. They operate on a perception of balance (both accurate and flawed), not on how the rules actually operate.
But if you insist on this avenue than a Chapter Master in Power/Artificier Armour who is in a Centurion Squad cannot move and fire his Orbital Barrage because he does not have Slow and Purposeful cannot benefit from it. A Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad will have his Leadership reduced when a failed Combat Phase forces them to make a Morale Check as he does not have Stubborn nor can benefit from it. A Pain Boy does not give Feel No Pain to a Boyz unit he is in. And so on.
There is no notable difference between a Universal Special Rule, a Datasheet Special Rule, and a Command Benefit when it comes to interactions between ICs and units in the rulebook. None. The specific rule may have exceptions, requirements, or not even include the unit in its benefits, to which the IC will not be affected since he does not have the rule.
Apart from rules at list building have no effect once the game starts.
Once the IC joins, the IC unit ceases to exist. This is proven
Thus he is a normal member of the it for all rules purposes. This is proven
Thus the joined unit remains a unit from the formation
Thus the unit retains the benefit of the rule
Thus the IC, along with every model in the it, benefits from the rule without needing to possess the rule - as onky the unit does
This is all proven. This is all factual, nothing in y our argument is. You CONTINUALLY conflate confer/possess and benefit as if they are the same, and despite being REPEATEDLY called on it you are either blind to your own typing, or wilfully ignoring. Either way, you are not arguing honestly
Accepting gracefully that you are wrong would be a help. Oh, and no one here cas what the itc think. They make up,rules all the time, failing to,ever actually note when they have changed a rule.
nekooni wrote: Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.
What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.
quoting myself, i edited my post to answer you:
It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.
Where is this benefit word. I keep looking in the rule book but it doesn't exist as a rule. I look under the special rules section and no where does it say you can benefit from rules you don't have access too. My question is why do you continue to make up rules? You can not benefit from a special rule unless you have access to that special rule. Which means you need to gain a special rule such as a unit directly conferring it in order to benefit from it. This is why none of you can explain why the independant character restriction directly limits sharing of special rules unless specified.
nosferatu1001 wrote: That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.
IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.
undermines the whole of your argument
Confer != benefit. I do not need to HAVE the rule in order to BENEFIT from the rule
This is proven. Your concession that you cannot provide a rules quote for anything you claim is noted, as you have been asked and found wanting at every turn.
You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.
The rules simply do not say what you claim they say, and that's enough reason for me to leave this thread since this is clearly not going anywhere. Page 118 does simply not say that a unit cannot benefit from a Special Rule when it is not part of the detachment granting the Special Rule as their Command Benefit - which is what you claim, from what I understand from your post (you might want to calm down a tad again, though - getting hard to read there). It simply doesn't. You keep making these claims based on you literally replacing words with other words in your mind - see "to confer vs to benefit" previously - in order to fit your own narrative. Enjoy it while the thread remains open, I'm out.
Now that IS bull crap. Command Benefit rules state no such thing:"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." I see no place where a joined IC from another detachment are specifically exempted any more than any other interaction between ICs and units. The only limitations between detachments involves the Ally relationship, and Battle Brother rules do not provide any such exemption, either. The other levels of alliance do, but that is because they prevent the joining in the first place.
Page 118 clearly states:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment Meaning if an IC was taken from a different Detachment he does not belong to the Formation Detachment. Which leads me to this:
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules Command Benefits list the Special Rules or Benefits for all or some of the models in that specific detachment (aka Special Rules are a type of Command Benefit) and since a unit cannot belong to more then one Detachment he cannot benefit from another Detachments Special Rules.
Happyjew wrote: gmaleron, where in the rules for Formations, does it say that the rules granted, are Command Benefits?
Take the BA codex, for example.
Blood Angels Battle Company (Formation)
Units you must take
Restrictions.
Special Rules
Baal Strike Force (Detachment)
FOC (aka units you must take and can take)
Restrictions
Command Benefits
Detachments have Command Benefits. Formations (while a type of Detachment) do not have Command Benefits, they have special rules.
It States that Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits which means they are a type of Command Benefit when taken as a part of a Detachment, a Formation is a type of Detachment. I am not ignoring it at all and it is perfectly clear, IC's from a different Detachment cannot benefit from the Special Rules of another no matter how hard you try to find a loophole there is none.
nosferatu1001 wrote: That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.
You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.
I'm going to need a better reference since I do not always have the book handy, but I do have the epub on my phone to reference. The only rule I find that states "different detachment" is regarding the number of units of a Role an FOC may have, and if you want more than the FOC allows, you need to take a different detachment to put them in.
FlingitNow wrote: Well you've changed at least one word in that quote because that makes no sense in English. So you might want to have another go at that. However no one is claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 detachment other than you.
That is Word for Word from the Rulebook, so I haven't changed anything.
No, you changed words from the rulebook, or at least, mistranslating them.
No, you changed words from the rulebook, or at least, mistranslating them.
Lol you are so full of it, so now I have to be mistranslating because I am writing something that you don't agree with? Wow I guess that's one way to try and win an argument, claiming im misleading, figures.
Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Here it is again WORD FOR WORD from the Rulebook, not my fault it doesn't say what you want it to.
Happyjew wrote: gmaleron, where in the rules for Formations, does it say that the rules granted, are Command Benefits?
Take the BA codex, for example.
Blood Angels Battle Company (Formation)
Units you must take
Restrictions.
Special Rules
Baal Strike Force (Detachment)
FOC (aka units you must take and can take)
Restrictions
Command Benefits
Detachments have Command Benefits. Formations (while a type of Detachment) do not have Command Benefits, they have special rules.
It States that Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits which means they are a type of Command Benefit when taken as a part of a Detachment, a Formation is a type of Detachment. I am not ignoring it at all and it is perfectly clear, IC's from a different Detachment cannot benefit from the Special Rules of another no matter how hard you try to find a loophole there is none.
Correct, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits. No one has said otherwise. Which means Command Benefits are special rules, but not all special rules are Command Benefits. Formations don't have Command Benefits they have special rules. Just like Army List Entries don't have Command Benefits, they have special rules.
Now that IS bull crap. Command Benefit rules state no such thing:
"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."
I see no place where a joined IC from another detachment are specifically exempted any more than any other interaction between ICs and units. The only limitations between detachments involves the Ally relationship, and Battle Brother rules do not provide any such exemption, either. The other levels of alliance do, but that is because they prevent the joining in the first place.
Page 118 clearly states:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Meaning if an IC was taken from a different Detachment he does not belong to the Formation Detachment. Which leads me to this:
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules
Command Benefits list the Special Rules or Benefits for all or some of the models in that specific detachment (aka Special Rules are a type of Command Benefit) and since a unit cannot belong to more then one Detachment he cannot benefit from another Detachments Special Rules.
You seem to be ignoring one critical point often forgotten "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." The IC's unit identity is sublimated while joined to another detachment. It is not a Captain unit inside a Vanguard unit, it is a Captain model inside a Vanguard unit who reverts back to being a Captain model in a Captain unit when they separate from each other.
Happyjew wrote: Correct, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits. No one has said otherwise. Which means Command Benefits are special rules, but not all special rules are Command Benefits. Formations don't have Command Benefits they have special rules. Just like Army List Entries don't have Command Benefits, they have special rules.
They have Command Benefits because Special Rules are a TYPE of Command Benefit. And it still doesn't change the fact that they are part of a different Detachment than the IC attempting to join the unit in the Formation, he cannot belong to both and in that case cannot benefit from both.
Charistoph wrote: You seem to be ignoring one critical point often forgotten "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." The IC's unit identity is sublimated while joined to another detachment. It is not a Captain unit inside a Vanguard unit, it is a Captain model inside a Vanguard unit who reverts back to being a Captain model in a Captain unit when they separate from each other.
You are ignoring what I have been quoting all along, Independent Characters have to go about Special Rules a certain way:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So if the Special Rule itself does not state it affects the IC he cannot use it.
No, you changed words from the rulebook, or at least, mistranslating them.
Lol you are so full of it, so now I have to be mistranslating because I am writing something that you don't agree with? Wow I guess that's one way to try and win an argument, claiming im misleading, figures.
No, you are mistranslating them because you are ignoring all the rules regarding the situation, which I have pointed out above.
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Meaning if an IC was taken from a different Detachment he does not belong to the Formation Detachment. Which leads me to this:
Again with the misquote. It states that nowhere on page 118 because that makes no sense in English. If you're going to quote then quote what the actual rules state.
However we all know an IC is not from a Formation he was not selected for. However what detachment(s) is the combined IC and Squad unit from? 3rd time of asking now.
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules
Command Benefits list the Special Rules or Benefits for all or some of the models in that specific detachment (aka Special Rules are a type of Command Benefit) and since a unit cannot belong to more then one Detachment he cannot benefit from another Detachments Special Rules.
Sorry why can't a unit benefit from another Detachment's special rules? Nothing in your quote states or supports that. You have a quote say a unit can only belong to 1 detachment (well you've tried to quote that at least). You have a quote that says models in a Detachment gain it's benefits but nothing stating no one else can benefit.
Happyjew wrote: Correct, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits. No one has said otherwise. Which means Command Benefits are special rules, but not all special rules are Command Benefits. Formations don't have Command Benefits they have special rules. Just like Army List Entries don't have Command Benefits, they have special rules.
They have Command Benefits because Special Rules are a TYPE of Command Benefit. And it still doesn't change the fact that they are part of a different Detachment than the IC attempting to join the unit in the Formation, he cannot belong to both and in that case cannot benefit from both.
No, Formation Special Rules are NOT Command Benefits and nothing states as such, especially Formation datasheets. Command Benefits are Special Rules.
You people are the ones mistranslating, I am literally reading word for word out of the book and not misquoting anything, if you are the ones attempting to translate rather then speak your native language its probably on your end (no offense intended).
"Command Benefits: page 121
This Section of the Detachment lists any Special Rules or Benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that detachment"
No Special Rules area type of Command Benefit not the other way around.
No, you changed words from the rulebook, or at least, mistranslating them.
Lol you are so full of it, so now I have to be mistranslating because I am writing something that you don't agree with? Wow I guess that's one way to try and win an argument, claiming im misleading, figures.
Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Here it is again WORD FOR WORD from the Rulebook, not my fault it doesn't say what you want it to.
Well that page 118 quote isn't word for word is it? Actually look at what the rulebook has written in it.
However that doesn't change anything does it? What Detachment(s) does the combined IC and Squad unit belong to? 4th time now.
FlingitNow wrote: However that doesn't change anything does it? What Detachment(s) does the combined IC and Squad unit belong to? 4th time now.
It does and I answered you earlier, the situation in question deals with as follows:
-An IC from a CAD -A Unit from a Formation
So the IC joins the unit in the Formation, however because he is from a Different Detachment he cannot benefit from another Detachments Command Benefits which Special Rules are listed under.
Also as mentioned repeatedly and repeatedly ignored by everyone this is listed on page 166:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
nosferatu1001 wrote: Right, so their claim now is that ANY special rule is a Command Benefit?
Logical fallacy or what!
A-> B does not imply that B-> A.
Its what is listed in the Rule Book, take it up with GW if you have a problem, just like your "claim" of how a character from another detachment can get the benefits from another detachment while ignoring two lines of rules along the way.
nekooni wrote: The rules simply do not say what you claim they say, and that's enough reason for me to leave this thread since this is clearly not going anywhere. Page 118 does simply not say that a unit cannot benefit from a Special Rule when it is not part of the detachment granting the Special Rule as their Command Benefit - which is what you claim, from what I understand from your post (you might want to calm down a tad again, though - getting hard to read there). It simply doesn't. You keep making these claims based on you literally replacing words with other words in your mind - see "to confer vs to benefit" previously - in order to fit your own narrative. Enjoy it while the thread remains open, I'm out.
I have not replaced anything and I read everything word for word from the Rulebook, just because it doesn't cater to your opinion doesn't mean you have to lie and make accusations to try and suit your needs. Im sorry I proved you wrong and that you had no facts to support your claim (despite many instances to do so) and I am perfectly calm despite yet again, you trying to instigate something I am not. Next time when getting into a rule debate I would recommend reading through the entire Rulebook as it paints a clearer picture like I just proved. Good luck and thankfully I don't have to play you, I feel sorry for your opponents being taken advantage of by your House Rule.
gmaleron wrote: You people are the ones mistranslating, I am literally reading word for word out of the book and not misquoting anything, if you are the ones attempting to translate rather then speak your native language its probably on your end (no offense intended).
Yes, you are mistranslating at best. Missing context allows for mistranslation. You ignore the fact that when an IC joins a unit, it does not count as the unit it was before, but counts as being part that unit. A Blood Angels Captain joining a Dark Angels Tactical Squad is not treated as two units in one, but one single unit, the Dark Angels Tactical Squad which has Sergeant, Marines, and Captain models within it.
This Section of the Detachment lists any Special Rules or Benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that detachment"
No Special Rules area type of Command Benefit not the other way around.
Yes, the Legend states that it lists any Special Rules that apply to that detachment, which makes Command Benefts a type of Special Rule instead of all Special Rules being a type of Command Benefit. Just like the full section I quoted earlier.
My Chaplain does not have the Command Benefit of Zealot, he has the Special Rule of Zealot. My Decurion Warriors do not have the Command Benefit of Relentless, they have the Special Rule of Relentless, but they do have the Command Benefit of Ever-Living which is a detachment special rule.
I should also point out the the restrictions on Special Rules is not just limited to detachments (formation or otherwise), but is part of ANY Special Rule in the game. Read the introduction to the Special Rules section, particularly what it says in "What Special Rules Do I Have?"
So is everyone just going to ignore Charistoph's clear and concise interpretation of the rules that he listed on page 3? I have yet to see anyone address this clear, line for line, with quotes, interpretation. I'll quote it again here.
gmaleron wrote:The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.
Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.
To me you keep ignoring one key portion of that rule you keep quoting. When you bold it to highlight it, you keep skipping the important part where it provides and example. Here let me show you:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
So, we have a rule that says ICs do not have the special rules conferred on them, or in other words, do not have the special rules "granted or bestowed" upon them (using the Oxford online dictionary, how much more British can you get?). Yet, it does provide an exception if it specifies as in the Stubborn Special Rule.
Well, let's review the Stubborn Special Rule for how it confers on the IC:
"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."
Hmm, no mention of conferring (or any of its synonyms) or Independent Character exists in this rule. So how then does an IC not have its Leadership negatively affected while in a Stubborn unit? He doesn't get it. It is not bestowed or conferred upon him, yet the IC rule specifically points this rule out as the IC as the example of how an IC does get the rule from a unit (or vice versa).
The only possible solution is to review another portion of a rule and the target of the Stubborn Special Rule. From Joining and Leaving a Unit in the IC rules:"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." What is the target of the Stubborn rule? A unit that is somehow carrying the rule.
Then we continue on to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which states:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared."
Which indicates that Special Rules that affect a unit that the IC has joined WILL be affected as well, even if the IC leaves the group afterward. 92% of the unique rules provided by Formations are rules that have a Trigger and an effect, such as "When a unit with this special rule arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, it may Charge in the next Assault Phase." If the IC is with the unit when this Trigger occurs, it receives the beneficial effect from the rule just as much as it would be disabled if the unit was hit with a Blind Attack. Conversely, if the IC joins after the trigger, it is not affected.
So say you have a Vanguard unit with this Formation rule to charge and you have Marneus Calgar both waiting in Deep Strike Reserves as separate units and they both roll to come in on the same turn. You Deep Strike in the Vanguard unit, and seeing an opportunity for this unit to have even more punch, you Deep Strike Marneus Calgar in to Coherency with the unit (you gutsy player you) with no Mishaps. The Vanguard unit has fulfilled the conditions of its rule and the Trigger is activated and the unit receives the benefit. Calgar is not part of this unit when it happens as he arrives later and isn't considered a member of the unit till the end of the Movement Phase. This unit will not be able to charge because Calgar does not have any permission or Special Rule effect to override the Deep Strike and Reserves conditions.
BUT, if Calgar is in the Vanguard unit from deployment and Deep Strikes with the unit, he receives the benefit of the rule since he was a member of the unit when it received the effect of the Special Rule.
Do you see the difference?
This seems to be a very logical and clear line of reasoning.
FlingitNow wrote: However that doesn't change anything does it? What Detachment(s) does the combined IC and Squad unit belong to? 4th time now.
It does and I answered you earlier, the situation in question deals with as follows:
-An IC from an CAD -A Unit from a Formation
Cool so how many Detachments do you have listed there? Is that number more than 1? Because according to the actual quote from page 118 it can't be:
BRB page 118 wrote:
However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one detachment.
So the IC joins the unit in the Formation, however because he is from a Different Detachment he cannot benefit from another Detachments Command Benefits which Special Rules are listed under.
Why can it not? Again what rules support to do have for this. Remember a rule saying X gets Y is not the same as a rule saying if not X then you can not get Y.
Also as mentioned repeatedly and repeatedly ignored by everyone is this on page 166:
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different Special Rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn Special Rule), the units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Who has ignored that rule? How does that rule in any way damage our argument?
No, you changed words from the rulebook, or at least, mistranslating them.
Lol you are so full of it, so now I have to be mistranslating because I am writing something that you don't agree with? Wow I guess that's one way to try and win an argument, claiming im misleading, figures.
Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Here it is again WORD FOR WORD from the Rulebook, not my fault it doesn't say what you want it to.
Well that page 118 quote isn't word for word is it? Actually look at what the rulebook has written in it.
However that doesn't change anything does it? What Detachment(s) does the combined IC and Squad unit belong to? 4th time now.
You do realize no where in the rules does it state a model can transfer from one detachment to another just by joining another unit. The IC always belongs to its original detachment and thus does not gain another detachments command benefits. The IC is always an HQ choice (or whatever type you originally purchased it from) these do not change if you join a unit. If the game gave you a victory point for every HQ unit killed the IC (if purchased originally from HQ) would still give you a victory point. No where in the rules does it state two detachments can't join models in one unit. There is a line that states every unit must belong to a detachment and can not belong to more then one detachment but that only further clarifies how an IC is not part of that detachment. This is for a legal army At the start of a game when detachment rules are gained.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool so how many Detachments do you have listed there? Is that number more than 1? Because according to the actual quote from page 118 it can't be:
That is the POINT I am trying to make
Why can it not? Again what rules support to do have for this. Remember a rule saying X gets Y is not the same as a rule saying if not X then you can not get Y
Because it is clearly stated on pages 118 and 166 that a unit from a Different Detachment cannot gain the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of another Detachment. Page 166 describes it at the unit level.
Who has ignored that rule? How does that rule in any way damage our argument?
Everyone has, noosferatu and nekooni have stated that because it doesn't say if the IC can benefit from the Special Rule or not. The problem is that you have to read the Special Rule to see what it has to say, however it should never get to this point because he is part of a different detachment.
gungo wrote: You do realize no where in the rules does it state a model can transfer from one detachment to another just by joining another unit. The IC always belongs to its original detachment and thus does not gain another detachments command benefits. The IC is always an HQ choice (or whatever type you originally purchased it from) these do not change if you join a unit. If the game gave you a victory point for every HQ unit killed the IC (if purchased originally from HQ) would still give you a victory point. No where in the rules does it state two detachments can't share models in one unit. However it does state no model can ever be part of two detachments.
I don't understand how or why they keep ignoring it.
gungo wrote: You do realize no where in the rules does it state a model can transfer from one detachment to another just by joining another unit. The IC always belongs to its original detachment and thus does not gain another detachments command benefits. The IC is always an HQ choice (or whatever type you originally purchased it from) these do not change if you join a unit. If the game gave you a victory point for every HQ unit killed the IC (if purchased originally from HQ) would still give you a victory point. No where in the rules does it state two detachments can't share models in one unit. However it does state no model can ever be part of two detachments.
So again, we are going back to the two units in one argument which has yet to be supported anywhere? So the IC rule about when it joins another unit it counts as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes is never stated? Which rulebook are you using?
The IC has the HQ role when he is a unit, as the UNIT has the Role, not the model. When the IC is in a Troops unit, he is not operating as an HQ unit, but a model in a Troops unit. It really is quite simple and explicit, I don't understand why you choose to ignore it.
FlingitNow wrote: So what Detachment is the combined unit from? Remembering that the answer can only be 1 detachment?
I see how you are getting confused, the question started with a Space Marine Combined Arms Detachment containing an IC joined a unit from a Space Marine Formation. As long as an IC is listed as Battle Brothers with a unit from a different Detachment he can join them, however he does not benefit from their Special Rules because they are from a Different Detachment.
Charistoph wrote: So again, we are going back to the two units in one argument which has yet to be supported anywhere? So the IC rule about when it joins another unit it counts as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes is never stated? Which rulebook are you using?
The IC has the HQ role when he is a unit, as the UNIT has the Role, not the model. When the IC is in a Troops unit, he is not operating as an HQ unit, but a model in a Troops unit. It really is quite simple and explicit, I don't understand why you choose to ignore it.
If the IC were to join a unit from HIS Detachment then he has the potential to benefit from that Units Special Rules if said Special Rule can carry over to the IC such as Stubborn. Stubborn works because how the rule is setup "a model in the unit effects the whole unit". However since the Formation is a different Detachment he cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of the other Detachment. We are not ignoring it, its just a fact that it doesn't work at all because it never gets past the "from a different detachment" stage.
Gmaleron - so again, IC from cad joins unit from formation
The combined unit is a) from one detachment or b) from two detachments ? A or b. Pick one
Have you read the rule stating that the IC is a normal member of the unit yet?
IC unit from cad joins formation. IC Unit CEASES to exist. IC model is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.
And we're done. The unit is allowed to benefit from its special rules. (Not command benefits. Have you bothered to understand the difference yet??? A implies B does not mean B implies A. That's a logical fallacy YOU are committing, not GW. GW never said what you are claiming, so stop pretending otherwise). The IC, as a normal member, also benefits
There is no rule disallowing this, and the special rule in question permits it.
Done. Proven. Old argument, disproven every time. Confer != benefit.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool so how many Detachments do you have listed there? Is that number more than 1? Because according to the actual quote from page 118 it can't be:
That is the POINT I am trying to make
So now you accept the combined unit according page 118 can not belong to multiple Detachments. Also that due to page 166 the IC is a normal member of the unit and the unit is therefore still part of its detachment and only its Detachment.
Why can it not? Again what rules support to do have for this. Remember a rule saying X gets Y is not the same as a rule saying if not X then you can not get Y
Because it is clearly stated on pages 118 and 166 that a unit from a Different Detachment cannot gain the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of another Detachment. Page 166 describes it at the unit level.
Sorry but the rules don't say that as has been pointed out to you so you have intentionally lied here. Intentionally lying is rude so against the forum politeness rules, furthermore it does not enhance your position as the fact you have to lying implies you know your position is incorrect. Finally lying in such a blatant manner makes it impossible to move the discussion forward.
Who has ignored that rule? How does that rule in any way damage our argument?
Everyone has, noosferatu and nekooni have stated that because it doesn't say if the IC can benefit from the Special Rule or not. The problem is that you have to read the Special Rule to see what it has to say, however it should never get to this point because he is part of a different detachment.
Following what the rule says is not ignoring it. The IC does not gain a special rule merely by joining a unit with said special rule. However that special rule can still effect him. The rule in question sheds no light on whether or not the UK is effected by the special rule so is entirely irrelevant. Likewise the command benefit rule from page 121 puts no restrictions on who is effected by rules it just details models from a Detachment gain that detachments command benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Per your logic, the IC's special rules no longer exist since the IC unit ceases to exist.
Nope those special rules are granted to the IC model which does still exist. If the IC was say a Chaplain and a rule that "units of Chaplains gains benefit X" then whilst the Chaplain was joined to a unit he would indeed lose benefit X.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Gmaleron - so again, IC from cad joins unit from formation
The combined unit is a) from one detachment or b) from two detachments ? A or b. Pick one
Have you read the rule stating that the IC is a normal member of the unit yet?
IC unit from cad joins formation. IC Unit CEASES to exist. IC model is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.
And we're done. The unit is allowed to benefit from its special rules. (Not command benefits. Have you bothered to understand the difference yet??? A implies B does not mean B implies A. That's a logical fallacy YOU are committing, not GW. GW never said what you are claiming, so stop pretending otherwise). The IC, as a normal member, also benefits
There is no rule disallowing this, and the special rule in question permits it.
Done. Proven. Old argument, disproven every time. Confer != benefit.
Wrong wrong wrong yet again you are ignoring rules to suit your own needs, here we go again:
-It would be a unit from 2 different detachments, which if you were to READ THE RULES you would see that a unit from one Detachment cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of another Detachment.
-Yes I have read the rule however you are forgetting about the fact it is a different Detachment
-You are also forgetting about the rule which I have quoted stating that unless the Special Rule says it affects the Independent Character he does not benefit from it, but it doesn't matter because he is from a different Detachment.
You are twisting words to suit you own needs, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits for Detachments which a Formation is a type of Detachment. Done and done, no argument or leg to stand on to support your claims.
You are making zero sense dude, what are you asking? You are asking the same thing over and over even though I answered your questions and you are asking questions that don't make sense?
FlingitNow wrote: So what Detachment is the combined unit from? Remembering that the answer can only be 1 detachment?
I see how you are getting confused, the question started with a Space Marine Combined Arms Detachment containing an IC joined a unit from a Space Marine Formation. As long as an IC is listed as Battle Brothers with a unit from a different Detachment he can join them, however he does not benefit from their Special Rules because they are from a Different Detachment.
Charistoph wrote: So again, we are going back to the two units in one argument which has yet to be supported anywhere? So the IC rule about when it joins another unit it counts as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes is never stated? Which rulebook are you using?
The IC has the HQ role when he is a unit, as the UNIT has the Role, not the model. When the IC is in a Troops unit, he is not operating as an HQ unit, but a model in a Troops unit. It really is quite simple and explicit, I don't understand why you choose to ignore it.
If the IC were to join a unit from HIS Detachment then he has the potential to benefit from that Units Special Rules if said Special Rule can carry over to the IC such as Stubborn. Stubborn works because how the rule is setup "a model in the unit effects the whole unit". However since the Formation is a different Detachment he cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of the other Detachment. We are not ignoring it, its just a fact that it doesn't work at all because it never gets past the "from a different detachment" stage.
So being general seems to confuse you so I'll try to be more specific. We have an IC From a CAD. It joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. What Detachment is the combined unit from?
FlingitNow wrote: So being general seems to confuse you so I'll try to be more specific. We have an IC From a CAD. It joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. What Detachment is the combined unit from?
Lol no I am just fine when it comes to tactics and overall strategy, it is your English and line of questioning that is difficult to understand. As I stated earlier:
-It is x2 Detachments, nothing stops an IC from joining the unit from another detachment as long as they are battle brothers.
-The fact that they are part of x2 Detachments means that the IC cannot benefit from the units Special Rules (a type of Command Benefits)
FlingitNow wrote: So being general seems to confuse you so I'll try to be more specific. We have an IC From a CAD. It joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. What Detachment is the combined unit from?
Lol no I am just fine when it comes to tactics and overall strategy, it is your English and line of questioning that is difficult to understand. As I stated earlier:
-It is x2 Detachments, nothing stops an IC from joining the unit from another detachment as long as they are battle brothers.
-The fact that they are part of x2 Detachments means that the IC cannot benefit from the units Command Benefits (Special Rules)
How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?
Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?
How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?
Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?
Clearly there is because you refuse to listen to what I have said to you repeatedly.
Page 118 clearly states:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
All this means is that a unit has to belong to a Detachment of some kind when creating a Battle Forged Army, it cannot be the HQ choice for two different detachments is what it means. It says nothing about not being able to join another unit from a different Detachment if they are Battle Brothers.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Gmaleron - so again, IC from cad joins unit from formation The combined unit is a) from one detachment or b) from two detachments ? A or b. Pick one Have you read the rule stating that the IC is a normal member of the unit yet? IC unit from cad joins formation. IC Unit CEASES to exist. IC model is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. And we're done. The unit is allowed to benefit from its special rules. (Not command benefits. Have you bothered to understand the difference yet??? A implies B does not mean B implies A. That's a logical fallacy YOU are committing, not GW. GW never said what you are claiming, so stop pretending otherwise). The IC, as a normal member, also benefits There is no rule disallowing this, and the special rule in question permits it. Done. Proven. Old argument, disproven every time. Confer != benefit.
Wrong wrong wrong yet again you are ignoring rules to suit your own needs, here we go again:
Sigh. No, not at all. I notice you couldnt answer the simple question - care to give it another go?
Is the unit from ONE or TWO detachments? A simple question requiring a simple, straightforward answer. Your continued evasion is a sign of dishonest argumentation, so it wouldbe appreciated if you could manage to support your argument, for once.
gmaleron wrote: -It would be a unit from 2 different detachments, which if you were to READ THE RULES you would see that a unit from one Detachment cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of another Detachment.
Wrong. IC joins a unit, it ceases to exist as a unit in itself. There is just ONE unit, and the ONE unit belongs to ONE detachment.
Cite: Page 166 "..., he again becomes a unit of one model..."
Meaning while with the formation-unit, he was NOT a unit by himself. As the detachment rules are to do with Units, the rule you cited can have no effect.
PRoven. Your argument is dismissed.
gmaleron wrote: -Yes I have read the rule however you are forgetting about the fact it is a different Detachment -You are also forgetting about the rule which I have quoted stating that unless the Special Rule says it affects the Independent Character he does not benefit from it, but it doesn't matter because he is from a different Detachment.
THe IC UNIT, which no longer exists, may be from a different detachment. However the IC MODEL, while within the formation-unit, is a normal member ofthe unit, for all rules purposes. What part of "all rules purposes" is causing the issue here? Its a very straighforward rule.
Similarly the rule on page 166, which you quoted, does not say, anywhere, the word benefit . It says the word "confer". Now, as you are [b]very well aware by now, confer and benefit are not the same word, and do not have the same meaning
Thus, the only person twisting words to suit their own needs, is you
You are arguing dishonestly. Dont.
gmaleron wrote:You are twisting words to suit you own needs, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits for Detachments which a Formation is a type of Detachment. Done and done, no argument or leg to stand on to support your claims.
Some special rules are command benefits. Not ALL special rules are command benefits. Can you understand the difference yet? Again, it would be helpful if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you are making, by saying A->B means B->A . Do you understand "logical fallacy", or the specific instance of excluded middle you are committing here? Its a common trap, but its been pointed out SO OFTEN now, I presume you ignore it, simply because it "benefits" (see, not confers - its like the words are fdifferent!) your argument.
WHich is again, arguing dishonestly. Now, while that doesnt in itself make your argument incorrect - the fallacy fallacy - it doesnt exactly make your argument credible, does it?
How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?
Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?
Clearly there is because you refuse to listen to what I have said to you repeatedly.
Page 118 clearly states:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
All this means is that a unit has to belong to a Detachment of some kind when creating a Battle Forged Army, it cannot be the HQ choice for two different detachments is what it means. It says nothing about not being able to join another unit from a different Detachment if they are Battle Brothers.
Sorry you seem to be struggling more than I realised. When the IC joins the ASM squad, is that combined collection of models a unit (and therefore governed by unit rules like being targeted by enemy shooting, unit coherency, making a shooting attack etc)?
the corect answer was given on page one. Since then we've just had posters who cant seem to help but use the word "benefit" when the rule states "confer", and seem to think they have the same meaning.
Its quite difficult to constructively argue when that level of self deception is going on.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, not at all. I notice you couldnt answer the simple question - care to give it another go?
If you knew how to read you will see I answered your question earlier, go back and read.
Wrong. IC joins a unit, it ceases to exist as a unit in itself. There is just ONE unit, and the ONE unit belongs to ONE detachment.
Cite: Page 166
"..., he again becomes a unit of one model...
Meaning while with the formation-unit, he was NOT a unit by himself. As the detachment rules are to do with Units, the rule you cited can have no effect.
PRoven. Your argument is dismissed.
WRONG, on page 166 it reads:
"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"
So the he now counts as part of the unit EXCEPT when it comes to Special Rules as stated on both page 166 and 118 several times that you continue to ignore to try and prove your argument. Sorry, you cant ignore all of that and still say you are right.
Some special rules are command benefits. Not ALL special rules are command benefits. Can you understand the difference yet? Again, it would be helpful if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you are making, by saying A->B means B->A . Do you understand "logical fallacy", or the specific instance of excluded middle you are committing here? Its a common trap, but its been pointed out SO OFTEN now, I presume you ignore it, simply because it "benefits" (see, not confers - its like the words are fdifferent!) your argument. WHich is again, arguing dishonestly. Now, while that doesnt in itself make your argument incorrect - the fallacy fallacy - it doesnt exactly make your argument credible, does it?
The fact that Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits in regards to Detachments proves your point wrong since a Formation is a type of Detachment, nice try.
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry you seem to be struggling more than I realised. When the IC joins the ASM squad, is that combined collection of models a unit (and therefore governed by unit rules like being targeted by enemy shooting, unit coherency, making a shooting attack etc)?
Apparently you finally learned to ask a different question, congrats on expanding on your English! They count as a single unit, however since they are made up from models of x2 Detachments it means that the IC cannot benefit from the Formations Special Rules (Command Benefits) that are given to the units that make up the Formation.
So gmaleron does the IC unit still exist whilst joined to another unit? Can I still target the IC unit with shooting, Psychic and close combat attacks?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently you finally learned to ask a different question, congrats on expanding on your English! They count as a single unit,
Right and what Detachment is that single unit from? Remembering you now accept it is 1 unit and page 118 states that 1 unit can only ever belong to 1 Detachment.
So you didnt read my citation, stating he "again" becomes a unit of one model? Even though its from page 166? And I quoted it?
If you "again" become a unit of one model, you cannot have been a unit "before". When was "before"? When he was joined, as that is the context.
I am not lying
REPORTED for rule 1. I will also ask for a modlock, as you have failed to adhere to the tenets.
SPecial RUles / Command Benefits.
Again, you are claiming that because Command Benefits CAN list special rules, that ALL special rules are Command Benefits. Which is just wrong. I am sorry you do not undetrstand that at all.
I'm out. There is only so much banging against a brick wall that I can stand. Good day.
FlingitNow wrote: So gmaleron does the IC unit still exist whilst joined to another unit? Can I still target the IC unit with shooting, Psychic and close combat attacks?
Depends on the weapon being used like Sniper Rifles or the type of Psychic Powers but then it falls to closest to closest model so he does exist to some degree, none of this addresses how he deals with Special Rules however or the fact he is from a different Detachment so its null and void.
FlingitNow wrote: Right and what Detachment is that single unit from? Remembering you now accept it is 1 unit and page 118 states that 1 unit can only ever belong to 1 Detachment.
I answered it above im not answering it again, read what I said please.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So you didnt read my citation, stating he "again" becomes a unit of one model? Even though its from page 166? And I quoted it? If you "again" become a unit of one model, you cannot have been a unit "before". When was "before"? When he was joined, as that is the context.
It follows the rule as listed on page 166 however he still follows the rules for characters which you ignored.
I am not lying
REPORTED for rule 1. I will also ask for a modlock, as you have failed to adhere to the tenets.
You are just as guilty and go ahead and report, you are as well for your immature egotistical behavior and your inability to listen to others opinions.
SPecial RUles / Command Benefits.
Again, you are claiming that because Command Benefits CAN list special rules, that ALL special rules are Command Benefits. Which is just wrong. I am sorry you do not undetrstand that at all.
I'm out. There is only so much banging against a brick wall that I can stand. Good day.
You are just upset that I proved you wrong and have nothing to show for it. If you cared to read what I said you would have seen that I even said that not all Special Rules are not Command Benefits, however those Special Rules that are given to specific units for being apart of a Formation (a type of Detachment) are Command Benefits as stated on page 121. Good riddance, I feel sorry for people you are continuing to take advantage of with your butchering of this rule.
Here is where I am struggling to get a definitive answer from this thread.
Camp A states:
"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"
Camp B states:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Which one is right? Camp A is claiming that "all rules purposes" also applies to special rules. However, my initial reaction would be that "all rules purposes" applies to movement, shooting, targeting a unit, going to ground etc. When it comes to special rules, we go to the Camp B line. It clearly states that unless otherwise specified, special rules are NOT conferred to ICs. This line is pretty clear cut to me. How do you explain away this line? If the special rule does not explicitly say it confers to the IC, the IC does not get it. No where in the ...On Target rule does it say that it applies to ICs. It just says Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation can charge from Deep Strike. You always read on this forum that "this is a permissive rule set." I have a line that says unless stated otherwise, an IC does not get this rule. I cannot find anything that over rides this rule.
It then references Stubborn. Stubborn has a line that says "if one model in the unit has stubborn..." which is the permission to give the entire unit stubborn.
Forgive me for not having the rulebook in front of me, but if a unit has Fleet, does an IC gain fleet? I though fleet was an all or nothing special rule. As was infiltrate.
Rules that were one model has it, they all get it were stealth, stubborn, slow and puposeful.
This is by no means an all inclusive list. But, this line of logic leads me to believe that an IC could arrive from reserves, join a unit on the board, and then charge. This is because "the IC unit ceases to exit, etc" and is now part of the unit on the board. This would not be allowed.
P.S. I play Raven Guard and would love to make this work. However, when I looked at the rule, I thought "no attaching characters to this unit to pull this off." As the X-Files say "I want to believe."
Depends on the weapon being used like Sniper Rifles or the type of Psychic Powers but then it falls to closest to closest model so he does exist to some degree, none of this addresses how he deals with Special Rules however or the fact he is from a different Detachment so its null and void.
No those things effect wound allocation. I'm talking about normal target selection as clearly given by the context of unit level rules. Care to actually answer the question? Can my say Ork Loota mob still pick the IC unit as a legal target for shooting?
I also note you still can't answer the question of what single Detachment the combined unit comes from? You agreed it is a single unit so page 118 forces you to pick 1 Detachment and entire destroys your 2 detachment claim from earlier. So what Detachment is the combined ASM & IC unit from earlier part of?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Green is Best. Does camp B's quote state that an IC can not be effected by a special rule from his unit? As that is the claim Camp B are making. A long with claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 Detachment despite page 118 proving this can't be the case. Whilst lately it has been getting even weirder as they claim the IC unit still exists as a separate entity which means you can still target it individually...
Green is Best! wrote: Here is where I am struggling to get a definitive answer from this thread.
Camp A states:
"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"
Camp B states:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
They are both listed on page 166 in the Rulebook in separate sections, what you listed as "Camp A" is how the IC interacts with the unit he is with. What you listed as "Camp B" is how the IC deals with Special Rules.
It then references Stubborn. Stubborn has a line that says "if one model in the unit has stubborn..." which is the permission to give the entire unit stubborn.
Correct this is a case of the Special Rule in question being able to effect the IC attached to the unit.
Forgive me for not having the rulebook in front of me, but if a unit has Fleet, does an IC gain fleet? I though fleet was an all or nothing special rule. As was infiltrate.
Rules that were one model has it, they all get it were stealth, stubborn, slow and puposeful.
This is by no means an all inclusive list. But, this line of logic leads me to believe that an IC could arrive from reserves, join a unit on the board, and then charge. This is because "the IC unit ceases to exit, etc" and is now part of the unit on the board. This would not be allowed.
P.S. I play Raven Guard and would love to make this work. However, when I looked at the rule, I thought "no attaching characters to this unit to pull this off." As the X-Files say "I want to believe."
To answer your question Fleet states: "A unit composed entirely of models with this Special Rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll for example" so the IC would have to have Fleet as well in order to be able to use it. The fact that he would have to be apart of the same Detachment (a Formation is a kind of Detachment) to benefit from the Special Rules means he could not join a unit from a Formation and benefit from their Special Rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Still following the rules for characters != still their own unit. That's not even close.
You're claiming they are their own unit. Which is false.
It is not false, they are there own unit unless attached to a unit and then they have to follow the rules described on page 166 regarding Special Rules as they still follow rules for characters, its that easy. On top of that they are STILL from different Detachments, something you have not yet proven false once.
In regards to Flingitnow he seems to think I have not answered his question (which I have a few times already):
They come from 2 different detachments, again 2 different detachments, page 118 does not force you to pick one detachment you are not understanding the point I am trying to make. An Independent Character can join units from other Detachments if those units are made up of Battle Brothers there is nothing preventing that. What he CANNOT do is benefit from their Special Rules as he has to follow the rules for characters on page 166 and for detachments on page 118.
The IC model still exists and that is why it retains the IC special rule and can trigger things like LoS and leaving the unit. The IC unit can not exist because of the quote now provided, likewise if ghetto IC unit did exist then it could be targeted separately by example shooting attacks.
The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment.
Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.
No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.
No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.
So is the rulebook correct or false when it says that a unit can only ever belong to one detachment?
FlingitNow wrote: Again you claim a single unit can come from 2 different detachments despite page 118 literally saying the opposite.
So since you freely admit that your interpretation disagrees with the rules how can you claim it is RAW?
You are not understanding at all, my interpretation is not disagreeing with the rules at all you need to read carefully and try and understand. Page 118 states:
Page 118 clearly states:
Detachments Page 118:
"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment"
This means that when creating a Battle Forged army each unit must belong to a Detachment of some kind, for example a CAD or a Formation. It does not state anywhere that Characters cannot join units in different detachments, this is allowed if both Detachments are from the same Faction or are Battle Brothers in the Allied Matrix. You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.
When the rule says a unit cannot belong to 2 different detachments it means that an IC cannot be picked as an HQ choice for both the Formation and the CAD for example, he has to go to one detachment or the other.
All of the Vanguard Veterans have to "on target" special rule.
2.
So the rules look like this.
Vanguard Veteran 1 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 2 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 3 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 4 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant "on target"
Chaplain "zealot"
Note, the Chaplain does not get the "on target" rule
The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault.
So this unit may assault. As an IC is part of the unit for all purposes, the Chaplain may asssault.
The chaplain never got the "on target" rule. But may still assault.
Another example is like above but zealot.
The chaplain doesn't give the Vanguard Veterans models Zealot.
However the "Zealot" rule says, "at unit with at least one model with this special rule has fearless and hatred"
Neither the Vanguard models, or the Chaplain give each other their special rules. However the rules target the "unit" which as per the IC rules, the IC is a part of.
So the unit targeted is :
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain
So are you now claiming when an IC joins another unit your army stops being battleforged?
You agree Marneus in the Skyhammer ASM squad is 1 unit.
Page 118 says (which once again you misquote) "However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment"
So how can a unit belonging to two Detachments not break that rule?
harkequin wrote: Okay, Ignoring all the arguments and issues cropping up in the last few pages about detachments and ICs.
Here is the scenario.
Vanguard Veterans from Shadowstrike (formation that allows them to assault)
A chaplain has joined the unit before deepstrike.
1.
The unit
Vanguard Veterans Unit:
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain
Is the Chaplin originally from the Formation? And does the On Target Special Rule state it effects all models in the unit or carries over to the IC? If the answer is no to any one of those if the Chaplin is part of the unit the unit cannot assault from Deep Strike.
FlingitNow wrote: So are you now claiming when an IC joins another unit your army stops being battleforged?
You agree Marneus in the Skyhammer ASM squad is 1 unit.
Page 118 says (which once again you misquote) "However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment"
So how can a unit belonging to two Detachments not break that rule?
Im not misquoting anything, please stop lying its getting really annoying I have answered you repeatedly its not my fault you don't understand. You again are ignoring the Rules with Battle Brothers which states that: "a unit can be joined by an Independent Character that is a Battle Brother" meaning that they do not have to be apart of the same detachment. When Marneus joins the ASM Squad you follow the rules on page 166, yet again I will repeat myself.
the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.
No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.
Sigh. Seriously, you quoted a rule that states they still follow the rules for characters. You then stated that is to do with ICs. Exocet that is wrong, as the rule only talks about characters. Page 100.
The IC unit no longer exists. That is proven.
You know what? I can't be bothered. The rules have been shown many times over, and you simply respond by changing the written rules, denying rules exist, committing logical fallacies to try to pretend all special rules are command benefits, and arguing dishonestly.
You're done. The correct answer was given page one. This has literally added nothing, except showing how poorly some people can read rules - even inventing words like "benefit" that don't even exist in the rules they quote.
harkequin wrote: Okay, Ignoring all the arguments and issues cropping up in the last few pages about detachments and ICs. Here is the scenario. Vanguard Veterans from Shadowstrike (formation that allows them to assault) A chaplain has joined the unit before deepstrike. 1. The unit Vanguard Veterans Unit: Vanguard Veteran 1 Vanguard Veteran 2 Vanguard Veteran 3 Vanguard Veteran 4 Vanguard Veteran Sergeant Chaplain
Is the Chaplin originally from the Formation? And does the On Target Special Rule state it effects all models in the unit or carries over to the IC? If the answer is no to any one of those if the Chaplin is part of the unit the unit cannot assault from Deep Strike.
The Chaplain is part of the unit. Thanks to the "on target" special rule says the unit may assault. Being from the formation has nothing to do with it. "an independant Character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes" The "on target" rule allows the unit to assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
"on target" " Vanguard Veterans squads from this formation ...... (Verbatim)"
Not vanguard veterans models.
The IC is part of the vanguard veterans squad for all rules purposes.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
Sigh. Seriously, you quoted a rule that states they still follow the rules for characters. You then stated that is to do with ICs. Exocet that is wrong, as the rule only talks about characters. Page 100.
The IC unit no longer exists. That is proven.
You know what? I can't be bothered. The rules have been shown many times over, and you simply respond by changing the written rules, denying rules exist, committing logical fallacies to try to pretend all special rules are command benefits, and arguing dishonestly.
You're done. The correct answer was given page one. This has literally added nothing, except showing how poorly some people can read rules - even inventing words like "benefit" that don't even exist in the rules they quote.
The rules for Characters on Page 100, the Rules for Independent Characters are on page 166, you are looking in the wrong spot and Marneus Calgar is an Independent Character so sorry you are wrong. And no its not proven, it clearly states on page 166 (the CORRECT PAGE) that he still follows the rules for characters which includes that clause about Special Rules. You are right, I have shown the rules over and over again and you are changing written rules, looking at the wrong page for said rules and arguing dishonestly. You're done and you have been proven false repeatedly, you are right it shows how poorly YOU read rules, and the word "Benefit" exists under Command Benefits so once again you are proven a liar. Good riddance to people who don't know how to use a menu section in a Rulebook.
nosferatu1001 wrote: it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
You are correct man don't listen to him, he cant even get the correct page number and doesn't even know that Marneus Calgar is listed as an Independent Character, he doesn't understand the rules at all. He is ignoring the fact that the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character as well.
FlingitNow wrote: Blaktoof Vanguard Veteran Squad is the name of the unit. Thus it does indeed state it benefits the unit. I pretty certain this was covered on page 1?
Correct it is the name of the unit that was chosen as part of a Formation Detachment. The Chaplin is not part of the Formation Detachment and therefore cannot benefit from the Formation Units Special Rules as described clearly in the Rule Book.
Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"
Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.
nosferatu1001 wrote: For the final time
Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"
Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.
I'll accept your apology now.
Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.
Correct it is the name of the unit that was chosen as part of a Formation Detachment. The Chaplin is not part of the Formation Detachment and therefore cannot benefit from the Formation Units Special Rules as described clearly in the Rule Book.
This is false.
Dude please go back to my longer post and point out where its tripping you up.
You're original argument.
"units special rules do not confer to an IC and an ICs special rules do not confer to a unit"
I proved that neither rules are being conferred to each other.
Correct it is the name of the unit that was chosen as part of a Formation Detachment. The Chaplin is not part of the Formation Detachment and therefore cannot benefit from the Formation Units Special Rules as described clearly in the Rule Book.
This is false.
Dude please go back to my longer post and point out where its tripping you up.
You're original argument.
"units special rules do not confer to an IC and an ICs special rules do not confer to a unit"
I proved that neither rules are being conferred to each other.
You didn't, here are the rules that void your argument so its not false:
Detachments
Page 118: "However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
Formations Page 121:
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.
nosferatu1001 wrote: For the final time
Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"
Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.
I'll accept your apology now.
Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.
Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?
FlingitNow wrote: Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?
The fact that Marneus Calgar has "Independent Character" listed in his unit profile means that you use all the rules found on page 166 for Independent Characters, if he was a regular Character (whose rules for those are on page 100) he couldn't even join the unit to begin with.
According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.
They are both part of the same detachment. Talon strike force
Charistoph wrote: So again, we are going back to the two units in one argument which has yet to be supported anywhere? So the IC rule about when it joins another unit it counts as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes is never stated? Which rulebook are you using?
The IC has the HQ role when he is a unit, as the UNIT has the Role, not the model. When the IC is in a Troops unit, he is not operating as an HQ unit, but a model in a Troops unit. It really is quite simple and explicit, I don't understand why you choose to ignore it.
If the IC were to join a unit from HIS Detachment then he has the potential to benefit from that Units Special Rules if said Special Rule can carry over to the IC such as Stubborn. Stubborn works because how the rule is setup "a model in the unit effects the whole unit". However since the Formation is a different Detachment he cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of the other Detachment. We are not ignoring it, its just a fact that it doesn't work at all because it never gets past the "from a different detachment" stage.
Incorrect. You keep thinking that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit. The rule regarding detachments states that a unit cannot belong to two different detachments. We are not changing this as when an IC joins a unit, his unit identity no longer counts, only the unit identity of the unit he joins matters until he leaves the unit.
To put it simply, when a Blood Angel Captain joins a Dark Angel Tactical Squad it becomes a Captain model with Furious Charge in a in a Dark Angels Tactical Squad.
In addition, there are zero differences between a Detachment special rule and a Universal Special Rule, save where one finds them.
gmaleron wrote:
FlingitNow wrote: So being general seems to confuse you so I'll try to be more specific. We have an IC From a CAD. It joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. What Detachment is the combined unit from?
Lol no I am just fine when it comes to tactics and overall strategy, it is your English and line of questioning that is difficult to understand. As I stated earlier:
-It is x2 Detachments, nothing stops an IC from joining the unit from another detachment as long as they are battle brothers.
-The fact that they are part of x2 Detachments means that the IC cannot benefit from the units Special Rules (a type of Command Benefits)
2 incorrect points.
If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
All Command Benefits are Special Rules, but not all Special Rules are Command Benefits. All elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. All pugs are dogs, but not all dogs are pugs. If a model's special rules are Command Benefits, than they are lost when taken Unbound. But this is not the case as Command Benefits are only listed for detachments who cannot be used while Unbound.
Green is Best! wrote:Here is where I am struggling to get a definitive answer from this thread.
Camp A states:
"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"
Camp B states:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Which one is right? Camp A is claiming that "all rules purposes" also applies to special rules. However, my initial reaction would be that "all rules purposes" applies to movement, shooting, targeting a unit, going to ground etc. When it comes to special rules, we go to the Camp B line. It clearly states that unless otherwise specified, special rules are NOT conferred to ICs. This line is pretty clear cut to me. How do you explain away this line? If the special rule does not explicitly say it confers to the IC, the IC does not get it. No where in the ...On Target rule does it say that it applies to ICs. It just says Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation can charge from Deep Strike. You always read on this forum that "this is a permissive rule set." I have a line that says unless stated otherwise, an IC does not get this rule. I cannot find anything that over rides this rule.
It then references Stubborn. Stubborn has a line that says "if one model in the unit has stubborn..." which is the permission to give the entire unit stubborn.
Forgive me for not having the rulebook in front of me, but if a unit has Fleet, does an IC gain fleet? I though fleet was an all or nothing special rule. As was infiltrate.
Rules that were one model has it, they all get it were stealth, stubborn, slow and puposeful.
This is by no means an all inclusive list. But, this line of logic leads me to believe that an IC could arrive from reserves, join a unit on the board, and then charge. This is because "the IC unit ceases to exit, etc" and is now part of the unit on the board. This would not be allowed.
P.S. I play Raven Guard and would love to make this work. However, when I looked at the rule, I thought "no attaching characters to this unit to pull this off." As the X-Files say "I want to believe."
Camp A and Camp B are the same camp, actually. We take both rules in to consideration.
Camp C seems to ignore the exception listed for the special rules all together,
Camp D seems to think that special rules pass between IC and units (where permitted) only when in the same detachment.
There is also a Camp E which take one condition from Stubborn to use as the whole standard for this, which would ignore the reference to Blind.
And there is a Camp F which seems to think that a unit called by name is not actually referring to a unit, but only the original models purchased for the unit.
In the case of Fleet, the IC is part of the unit. All models in the unit must have this rule in order for the unit to do Fleet rerolls. If the IC does not have it, not every model in the unit has it, so the unit cannot have access this Reroll.
You also have the perspective of Stubborn backwards, the rule asks if a unit has a model with the rule. If it does during the Tests in question the unit gets go ignore a certain effect on them. No mention of giving or conferring is used.
Infiltrate is not an all or nothing rule like Fleet or Deep Strike, it only requires one model in the unit for the unit to use it. In most cases, it doesn't mean much since most units with Infiltrate usually have all models with it or none of them do, and ICs need to have it to join a unit with it in deployment. However if a unit Character like an Exarch or Sergeant alone has the rule, the whole unit are Infiltrators.
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.
"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Charistoph wrote: 2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.
According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.
They are both part of the same detachment. Talon strike force
Okay then because the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character the Special Rule "On Target" has to carry over to the IC in some way, if it doesn't then he cannot benefit from the Special Rule as per the rules for Independent Characteres on page 166
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.
"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Q.E.D
The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault, it says nothing about anyone else in the unit so no the Vanguard Veterans are the only ones that can assault coming from Deep Strike Q.E.D
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)
nosferatu1001 wrote: For the final time
Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"
Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.
I'll accept your apology now.
Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.
Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100
Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (any unit with a model that contains this special rule e.g. stealth)
Incorrect, as ever.
The name of the ale is the name of the unit. Ale equals unit.
I'd say try again, but this is not for your benefit, just others who may believe your argument has some credibility. It doesn't,t as it is based on rubbish like pretending the reference to the ALE is somehow a reference to the models, when the cited rules state differently (and would bpmeans e.g. The Sarge doesn't get the rule, as he is named differently. But then you of course handwaved that little inconvenience away)
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.
Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.
Incorrect, as ever.
The name of the ale is the name of the unit. Ale equals unit.
I'd say try again, but this is not for your benefit, just others who may believe your argument has some credibility. It doesn't,t as it is based on rubbish like pretending the reference to the ALE is somehow a reference to the models, when the cited rules state differently (and would bpmeans e.g. The Sarge doesn't get the rule, as he is named differently. But then you of course handwaved that little inconvenience away)
Making claims with an incorrect information and misreading the rules is not the way to go about things to try and solve your argument. You are attempting to try and claim that someone with Independent Character listed in their profile is just a character and searching for any little loophole to try and prove your argument. We have the RAW To back us up on multiple pages, you are claiming things that aren't even written down.
Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.
"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Q.E.D
Not quite, the veteran vanguards unit for that detachment gain the special rule BEFORE deployment when the IC has not joined. This is when the rules are given out.
If you read further on command benefits/formation special rules it tells you they are given out before the game begins to MODELS in said units.
So yes the vanguard veteran unit gains the rules on the MODELS before deployment. The IC cannot join the unit before deployment. Therefore the rule then needs to specify it benefits the unit if at least one model has it, and/or confers to the IC otherwise the IC cannot benefit.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.
Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.
No issue, it's what the triangle of friendship is for
Actually it states he follows the rules for characters. Did you read either my cute or your rule book? A simp,e yes or no is required, to see if your failing is from eithe not reading the cited rule, or simply failing to understand the meaning behind it. Root cause and all that.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.
Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.
No issue, it's what the triangle of friendship is for
Actually it states he follows the rules for characters. Did you read either my cute or your rule book? A simp,e yes or no is required, to see if your failing is from eithe not reading the cited rule, or simply failing to understand the meaning behind it. Root cause and all that.
I did read it and there is nothing there that is written as you claim, no surprise. Your failing is that you are making implications and assumptions instead of saying what is actually written which doesn't surprise me the fact you cant tell the truth. He is listed as an INDEPENDENT CHARACTER meaning he follows the rules for INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS, but of course to fit your agenda it makes sense to follow a completely different set of rules then what is listed in his profile.
Okay then because the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character the Special Rule "On Target" has to carry over to the IC in some way, if it doesn't then he cannot benefit from the Special Rule as per the rules for Independent Characteres on page 166
.. and the olympic gold in backpedalling goes to....
Your point got 100% countered and all of a sudden you are arguing a different point after all?
Or can you concede that the Detachment issue doesn't work now.
Never the less
Re the underlined No. It doesn't I literally proved this earlier.
Saying that the Chaplain can't charge is like saying the Vanguards don't get fearless.
The vanguard veterans have the rule. The rule allows the "unit" (Which the Chaplain is part of) to charge.
The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault, it says nothing about anyone else in the unit so no the Vanguard Veterans are the only ones that can assault coming from Deep Strike Q.E.D
Except you are ignoring this interesting quote
" an IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes"
This means regardless of all special rules,
The Chaplain is part of the Vanguard Veterans Squad
You cannot refute this.
Full paragraph, page 166 of the 7th edition brb, left hand column, final paragraph
"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"
Do you deny that full paragraph exists in the brb as stated? If so, could you please state what else is there?
FlingitNow wrote: Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?
The fact that Marneus Calgar has "Independent Character" listed in his unit profile means that you use all the rules found on page 166 for Independent Characters, if he was a regular Character (whose rules for those are on page 100) he couldn't even join the unit to begin with.
You are aware that Marneus is both an IC and a Character right? I believe every single IC is also a Character.
I did read it and there is nothing there that is written as you claim,
It literally says follow the rules for characters. Literally.
The way it works is P.166 IC -> go to P.100 Characters.
One rule tells you they can join squads, then tells you they follow the rules detailed under "characters"
Yes, but this is the same poster that thinks the word "benefit" exists in the Special Rules section instead of the actual word "confers", so I don't hold out much hope.
blaktoof wrote: can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.
verbatim from the rule.
Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.
Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim
Does that help?
Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.
For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.
The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".
This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.
Except you are ignoring this interesting quote
" an IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes"
I didn't backpedal at all, the fact that he is part of the Formation changes the circumstances why he cannot benefit from the rule so you are still wrong. The Detachment issue is not the problem in this case but the fact that he is an Independent Character means that he cannot benefit from Special Rules of a unit as described clearly on page 166. And you are trying to argue two different Special Rules with two different descriptions so your argument is flawed:
Fearless: Units containing one or models with the Fearless Special Rule Automatically pass Pinning, Fear regroup, and morale checks.
It clearly states that only one model in the unit has to have the rule to give it to everyone so im sorry, your argument is flawed. And I am not ignoring the fact that it says an IC is considered part of the unit, however you are forgetting to add "he still follows the rules for Characters", and since he is listed as an Independent Character you have to follow the rules for Independent Characters (which is a type of character) and Special Rules which states the Special Rule has to allow the IC in some way to benefit from the rule. Sorry the Chaplin cannot benefit from the Vanguard Veterans Special Rule.
Does that merely negate the assault-from-reserves restriction, or all restrictions? Probably the latter.
For instance, if you somehow had a combi-plas, and shot it in the shooting phase, would they still be allowed to charge, despite having fired a Rapid Fire weapon?
Charistoph wrote: 2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.
And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)
I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.
If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.
However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?
Charistoph wrote: Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment. And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
How does it violate the rules when there is a clear clause in Battle Brothers that states that as along as they are Battle Brothers IC's can join units in other Detachments? Also it mentions a similar thing under Factions. And I do recognize what you are saying but the IC still does not ignore the rules found for Independent Characters listed on page 166 which states that the Special Rule in some way shape or form confers to either the IC or the entire unit. It is the Special Rule itself that decides if he receives a benefit or not.
blaktoof wrote: can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.
verbatim from the rule.
Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.
Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim
Does that help?
Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.
So you're saying that when an IC joins a Vanguard Veteran Squad then the unit is no longer a Vanguard Veteran Squad?
I am saying there is no permission for the IC to be from the vanguard veteran squad, and in this case from the squad bought from that formation.
Being part of the unit != the IC changes which datasheet it was bought from and which detachment that datasheet goes to. And this is not an "unit" rule, because it lacks the word "unit".
Does that merely negate the assault-from-reserves restriction, or all restrictions? Probably the latter.
For instance, if you somehow had a combi-plas, and shot it in the shooting phase, would they still be allowed to charge, despite having fired a Rapid Fire weapon?
I think so, RAW but not RAI.
No, it only overrides the restriction normally applied to units coming from reserves since the rule specifically mentions arriving from Deep Strike. It does not override restrictions from other sources such as firing a Rapid Fire weapon.
Charistoph wrote: 2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.
And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)
I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.
If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.
However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?
so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?
or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment
this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.
So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.
Charistoph wrote: 2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.
And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)
I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.
If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.
However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?
so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?
or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?
Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment
this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.
So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.
What he has reverted to, immature personal attacks as his argument has been proven false, you will learn to laugh at it.
Charistoph wrote: 2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.
There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.
And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
blaktoof wrote: the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.
The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation
The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.
You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)
I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.
If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.
However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?
so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?
or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?
Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.
Exactly.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
blaktoof wrote: can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.
verbatim from the rule.
Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.
Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim
Does that help?
Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.
For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.
The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".
This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.
Are you kidding?
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
good thing it doesn't say that , it says (Verbatim) "Vanguard Veteran Squads" Which is the unit. When you point to a unit and ask what it is I will say, "Vanguard Veteran Squad". The IC is a part of that unit.
Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes,
So where is the confusion.
Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes
Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.
This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit.
They also ruled that invisibility doesn't make you snap fire, but that doesn't mean its the rule. They are [b] House rules[b] They make them to balance their tourney.
ETC. Rules that the ICs benefit.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Possibly Blaktoof changes the argument based on which specific flaw, from the absolute mountain of flaws with it, you expose at any one moment
this post is non constructive and just a personal attack.
So pretty much just a standard post from you I guess really.
What he has reverted to, immature personal attacks as his argument has been proven false, you will learn to laugh at it.
No he won't.
Everyone here is too stubborn about their position so any argument is fruitless.
blaktoof wrote: can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.
verbatim from the rule.
Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.
Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim
Does that help?
Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.
For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.
The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".
This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.
Are you kidding?
Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.
good thing it doesn't say that , it says (Verbatim) "Vanguard Veteran Squads" Which is the unit. When you point to a unit and ask what it is I will say, "Vanguard Veteran Squad". The IC is a part of that unit.
Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes,
So where is the confusion.
Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes
Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.
This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit.
They also ruled that invisibility doesn't make you snap fire, but that doesn't mean its the rule. They are [b] House rules[b] They make them to balance their tourney.
ETC. Rules that the ICs benefit.
I feel like your confusing the word Squad with the Rules word Unit.
Nope the techmarine is not Marneus Calgar but he is part of the Marneus Calgar unit. If I was measuring to the Marneus Calgar unit for some purpose I could measure to the techmarine.
This is a fundamental part of the game.
If Dante joins Draigo, are they a BA or GK unit?
Simply, It depends on who joined who.
This is important, for rules that affect BA, or GK units.
If Dante joined Draigo, It would be a GK unit, a Kaldor Draigo unit, consisting of 2 models, both ICs Dante and Draigo.
Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.
-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike
-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters
-Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.
He still cannot join them and benefit, not matter how much you want them to.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
And you are wrong.
From the BRB. Verbatim.
"UNITS
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads."
Page 8 of the rulebook.
A lot of that obtuse going on around here, it still doesn't effect or change the fact that an IC cannot join a unit and get their special rule unless the special rule includes the IC in some way.
Exactly.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
The Special Rule in Question "On target" specifically mentions the Vanguard Veteran Squad (which according to the Army List Entry is a minimum of x5 Vanguard Veterans) and since the Special Rule does not mention the IC or the fact that any model that joins the unit can benefit from the rule the Chaplin cannot get the On Target Special Rule.
Here is how it works.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
The Chaplain is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad" as he is considered part of the (vanguard veteran squad) unit for all rules purposes Now that we have established that he is part of the the "vanguard Veteran Squad"
the "vanguard Veteran Squad" can charge. This is 1 unit, he is part of the unit, he can charge with them.
-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike
-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters
-Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.
He still cannot join them and benefit, not matter how much you want them to.
Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.
Charistoph wrote: Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment. And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.
How does it violate the rules when there is a clear clause in Battle Brothers that states that as along as they are Battle Brothers IC's can join units in other Detachments? Also it mentions a similar thing under Factions. And I do recognize what you are saying but the IC still does not ignore the rules found for Independent Characters listed on page 166 which states that the Special Rule in some way shape or form confers to either the IC or the entire unit. It is the Special Rule itself that decides if he receives a benefit or not.
Battle Brothers does not address it all, actually, though it could be considered a more Advanced Rule, I suppose.
It still violates the condition for the IC to be counted as part of the unit for these purposes.
And yes, you keep ignoring the exception, or at the least, how the exception works, which is the same thing. I've gone over it twice in this thread, go back and review it if you want to actually understand what I mean.
blaktoof wrote:so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?
or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?
I know I have addressed this point to you before in other threads and you ignored it then, so will continue to ignore it now.. I have also addressed it several time in this thread. Nor have you provided any support for your baseless opnion.
There are four levels of interaction in the game, model, unit, Detachment, and army. Each model is associated with the other three (unless Unbound, than Detachment may not exist). Marneus Calgar is both a model name and the name of a unit. If a Techmarine joined Mareus Calgar, than the unit with a name of Marneus Calgar now has a Marneus Calgar model and a Techmarine model. Any rules that state just "Marneus Calgar" would only affect the Marneus Calgar model, since it is not identified as affecting a unit like Stubborn does.
What levels of identity does a Vanguard Veteran Squad have?
-It says Vanguard Veterans can charge from Deep Strike
No , you are wrong.
It says, Vanguard Veteran Squads ...... Can charge.
-Again he counts as part of the unit but follows the rules for characters, as an Independent Character he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters
This is correct.
Independent Characters cannot benefit from a Special Rule unless it includes the IC in some way.
This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.
This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.
It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to allow the IC to benefit from it, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over. It all depends on the Special Rule and according to "On Target" it only effects Vanguard Veteran Squads.
Zimko wrote: Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.
And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.
This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.
It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to give the benefit, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over.
Zimko wrote: Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.
And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.
Prove it.
Show me where it says an IC cant benefit from a special rule.
They are not Confered the special rule.
I don't know how to explain this , so im going to come right out and say it.
This is more than wrong. This is a lie.
point to me where it says this in the BRB.
point to the word "benefit".
The word "confer" means "to give". ICs can not "be given" the special rule.
As i proved earlier, the IC doesn't need to be given the rule, in order to benefit from it.
It is not a lie, the Special Rule itself is what has to allow the IC to benefit from it, that's the only way it makes sense. You have not proven anything, if the Special Rule itself does not give the benefit he can not do it, you are arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring the same issue over and over. It all depends on the Special Rule and according to "On Target" it only effects Vanguard Veteran Squads.
How does Stubborn do this then? It is the example used for how Special Rules confer. How does it do it?
And if you think Veteran Vanguard Squads refer to anything but a unit, I would like to see a quote for that. Blacktoof has failed at least a dozen times on this by now.
For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.
harkequin wrote: For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.
Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't. You are just proving my point, those Special Rules have a clear rule "if a single model has it everyone in the unit is affected" which includes the IC as it says "affects the entire unit". The IC followed the same rules when it comes to Special Rules and thanks to how the particular rules are worded he can benefit from them, On Target does not.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.
you intend they mean the target is the unit.
However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.
As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.
harkequin wrote: For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.
Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't.
But according to you the IC cant benefit from the special rule....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fearless says as long as one model has it, it affects the unit. Eg not every model has the rule, yet they benefit from it.
harkequin wrote: For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.
Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't.
But according to you the IC cant benefit from the special rule....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fearless says as long as one model has it, it affects the unit. Eg not every model has the rule, yet they benefit from it.
See where im going with this.
The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!
Zimko wrote: Actually, the rule for On Target quoted so far says 'Vanguard Veteran squads'. Which as has been stated is the name of the unit. An IC attached to that unit is also part of the 'Vanguard Veteran squad' and thus is affected by any rule that targets it. The rule does not need to be conferred to him. The rule simply targets the unit that he is part of.
And as stated multiple times being and Independent Character the Chaplin has to follow the rules when it comes to Independent Characters and Special Rules, if the Special rule does not allow the IC to benefit in some way the IC cannot use the Special Rule.
I think you're referring to this 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
Here's 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 stubborn is given a pass but it never mentions Independent Characters. The reason it is given a pass is because it says the 'unit' is given it's benefit. It's worded in a way that does not require every model in the unit to have the special rule in order for the rule to have an affect on the unit.
On Target also does not specify that every model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' must have the rule in order to benefit. Therefore, it would also be given a pass on the above restriction.
The fact that the BRB states 'as long as one model in the unit' in Stubborn is actually redundant. They also have rules that state 'every model in the unit must have X to benefit'. One of those two must be redundant or the other would not be required. It's just poor rules writing.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.
you intend they mean the target is the unit.
However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.
As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.
It says vanguard veteran squad. Therefore it targets the vanguard veteran squad ......
The Chaplain is part of the vanguard veteran squad
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!
SO DOES ON TARGET!
The point is the model doesn't need to have a rule to benefit from it.
so your argument that an IC cant benefit from special rules is obviously wrong
The Special Rule itself gives the IC the benefit, the fact that it says "only 1 model in the unit effects the entire unit" means it effects the IC. On Target says nothing of the sort, the IC follows the same rule in every case, its how the Special Rules are worded. And as I said it is the SPECIAL RULE THAT GIVES THE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE SPECIAL RULES DESCRIPTION!
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.
you intend they mean the target is the unit.
However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.
As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.
It says vanguard veteran squad. Therefore it targets the vanguard veteran squad ......
The Chaplain is part of the vanguard veteran squad
lol nope.
The chaplain is part of an unit. The unit is the vanguard veteran squad.
The chaplain however is not part of the vanguard veteran squad, unless you can show the chaplains stats on the vanguard veteran squad datasheet.
One is an unit, the other is the name of an unit that you can purchase models from and put into a formation/detachment.
And if Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified his "Unit" the techmarine would benefit. If Marneus Calgar had special rules which specified "Marneus Calgar" then the techmarine would not benefit.
The issue in this case is that Marneus Calgar is both the name of the model and the unit. So if it said Marneus Calgar gains X we wouldn't be able to know whether that was the model or unit. Context would have to help.
Now is there a unit called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Yes, is there a model called "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? Nope so we absolutely know the target is the unit.
as to the Marneus Calgar issue, the issue is that claiming the Name of an Unit = Unit is False. As you have just also proven.
you intend they mean the target is the unit.
However that they do not say "Unit" means you cannot say they mean Unit, or that it does mean Unit. There are no rules as written that state it benefits the Unit, or Units containing one or more models with this special rule. Which is the format used, and wording required for rules to benefit units from the BRB.
As formation special rules, and command benefits are given on a model level they could very well mean models from those squads- as the rules are given to MODELS in the Vanguard Veteran Squad before deployment. Which has even more RAW support than intending they mean unit without saying the word unit.
On Target is a special rule that Vanguard Veteran MODELS have. It gives a benefit to the "Vanguard Veteran Squad", is there anything called a Vanguard Veteran Squad other than the unit? It does clearly and unambiguously refer to the unit as it names the unit. So you are breaking the forum rules by not clearly marking your post HYWPI indeed you are claiming RAW whilst intentionally not following RAW which is lying, which is rude and also against the forum rules. Can you post something that does follow the rules please?
On Target is a special rule that Vanguard Veteran MODELS have. It gives a benefit to the "Vanguard Veteran Squad", is there anything called a Vanguard Veteran Squad other than the unit? It does clearly and unambiguously refer to the unit as it names the unit. So you are breaking the forum rules by not clearly marking your post HYWPI indeed you are claiming RAW whilst intentionally not following RAW which is lying, which is rude and also against the forum rules. Can you post something that does follow the rules please?
You really need to stop accusing people of lying, you ignored my post how Vanguard Veteran Squad is made up of a minimum of x5 Vanguard Veterans as listed in the Army List Entry. You really need to knock off the attacks on people who disagree with you and instead try to list facts that you have yet to post
that have any relevance, you are breaking the rules as well if your really want to go down that route.
harkequin wrote: For the record here is a short list of some of the rules you break.
Zealot. Congrats you broke a rule important to a lot of armies
Fearless
Stubborn
Shrouded
Slow and purposful
etc.
Fearless specifically states if at least a single model in the unit effects the entire unit...so does stubborn, and shrouded ect. On Target says nothing like that, it says it effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad and since the Chaplin is an IC On Target would have to effect him like shrouded, fearless ect. works on him but it doesn't. You are just proving my point, those Special Rules have a clear rule "if a single model has it everyone in the unit is affected" which includes the IC as it says "affects the entire unit". The IC followed the same rules when it comes to Special Rules and thanks to how the particular rules are worded he can benefit from them, On Target does not.
But ICs are never specifically mentioned at all, so they must not confer their benefits to ICs. Yet, this is how Stubborn works, the unit Benefits from the rule, and the IC counts as being part of the unit.
Can you separate the Chaplain model from the Vanguard Veteran Squad identity without violating this concept?
If you do for On target, than you do it for Stubborn, Zealot, Running, being Shot at etc. There is no level of difference in this consideration.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
This is wrong.
It says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge. Therefore "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
And as we know, the IC is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad"
Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
gmaleron wrote: The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
So when an IC is joined to the unit, that unit is no longer a 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'? Because that is what 'On Target' says is effected. You're right, the rule does not specify 'Vanguard Veterans'. Thus any model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' is effected whether all the models are 'Vanguard Veterans' or not.
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
This is wrong.
It says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge. Therefore "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
And as we know, the IC is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad"
Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
Where does it require all models to have the rule like Fleet or Deep Strike?
gmaleron wrote: The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
So when an IC is joined to the unit, that unit is no longer a 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'? Because that is what 'On Target' says is effected. You're right, the rule does not specify 'Vanguard Veterans'. Thus any model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' is effected whether all the models are 'Vanguard Veterans' or not.
No, the On Target rule effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad. When the IC joins the Vanguard Veteran Squad he is part of the squad, however he is an Independent Character so he has to follow the rules for Special Rules and Independent Characters found on page 166. It clearly states that if the Special Rule in some way does not include the IC he cannot benefit, I don't get what you guys are finding so hard about this its so damn easy!
Charistoph wrote: Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
Where does it require all models to have the rule like Fleet or Deep Strike?
The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
This is wrong.
It says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge. Therefore "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge.
And as we know, the IC is part of the "Vanguard Veteran Squad"
Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
And as we have proven he does not need the on target rule. just as stubborn affects the unit. On target affects the unit.
gmaleron wrote: The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
So when an IC is joined to the unit, that unit is no longer a 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'? Because that is what 'On Target' says is effected. You're right, the rule does not specify 'Vanguard Veterans'. Thus any model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' is effected whether all the models are 'Vanguard Veterans' or not.
No, the On Target rule effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad. When the IC joins the Vanguard Veteran Squad he is part of the squad, however he is an Independent Character so he has to follow the rules for Special Rules and Independent Characters found on page 166. It clearly states that if the Special Rule in some way does not include the IC he cannot benefit, I don't get what you guys are finding so hard about this its so damn easy!
No, the rule says this:
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."
No where does it say a rule can not benefit the IC. It just can't confer, which means he is never given the special rule. However, just like Stubborn, the special rule does not require that every model in the unit have the special rule in order to benefit.
And as we have proven he does not need the on target rule. just as stubborn affects the unit. On target affects the unit.
Dude STOP! On Target does not say the same thing as Stubborn does, just stop its getting ridiculous at this point.
And I am not lying, quit trying to say I am in order to make your argument look legitimate. We didn't establish anything, IT IS THE SPECIAL RULE ITSELF THAT HAS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT. IF THE SPECIAL RULE DOES NOT THEN THE IC DOES NOT GET IT. The Fearless Special Rule clearly says only one model in the unit has to have it to effect them all IN ITS DESCRIPTION. On Target does not in any way shape or form, he cant do and if you are you are cheating against your opponent.
And as we have proven he does not need the on target rule. just as stubborn affects the unit. On target affects the unit.
Dude STOP! On Target does not say the same thing as Stubborn does, just stop its getting ridiculous at this point.
It says it effects the unit.
Stubborn says it effects the unit.
Neither mentions ICs This is why its relevant.
It isn't relevant at all, stop it. Let me break it down yet again:
On target effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad,
The Chaplin joins the unit he becomes part of the Squad
the Chaplin is an IC IC have to follow guidelines for special rules
if the special rule does not benefit the IC (which Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits under Detachments) then the IC cannot get it. You are not able to do it and you are cheating if you do.
And I am not lying, quit trying to say I am in order to make your argument look legitimate. We didn't establish anything, IT IS THE SPECIAL RULE ITSELF THAT HAS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT. IF THE SPECIAL RULE DOES NOT THEN THE IC DOES NOT GET IT
prove it, where does it say this in the BRB?
We covered this with fearless. You even agreed!
As long as one model in the unit has this rule The unit passes morale etc ....
The other models dont "get" the rule , they benefit from it.
gmaleron wrote: The rule says "Vanguard Veteran Squads" can charge
It does not say a model in the unit effects the entire unit, therefore only the Vanguard Veterans can charge.
So when an IC is joined to the unit, that unit is no longer a 'Vanguard Veteran Squad'? Because that is what 'On Target' says is effected. You're right, the rule does not specify 'Vanguard Veterans'. Thus any model in the 'Vanguard Veteran Squad' is effected whether all the models are 'Vanguard Veterans' or not.
No, the On Target rule effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad. When the IC joins the Vanguard Veteran Squad he is part of the squad, however he is an Independent Character so he has to follow the rules for Special Rules and Independent Characters found on page 166. It clearly states that if the Special Rule in some way does not include the IC he cannot benefit, I don't get what you guys are finding so hard about this its so damn easy!
Charistoph wrote: Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
Where does it require all models to have the rule like Fleet or Deep Strike?
It says so in each Special Rules Description.
Again with the lies. If you want me to stop pointing out when you are lying, stop lying. You know the special rule section of the IC rules makes no mention of how ICS benefit or are effected by special rules only his they gain them. So rescind this lie so we can actually try to have a polite discussion. Lying is rude and not helpful in a rules discussion so has no place on this forum. Please follow the forum rules.
prove it, where does it say this in the BRB?
We covered this with fearless. You even agreed!
As long as one model in the unit has this rule The unit passes morale etc ....
The other models dont "get" the rule , they benefit from it.
I HAVE if you would listen for a change, page 166 for Independent Characters, page 118 and 121 for Formations and Detachments its that easy, read your book. Read Fearless as well, believe its page 172, and you just proved my point! The Special Rule itself gives the benefit as I have been saying, On Target does not!!
FlingitNow wrote: Again with the lies. If you want me to stop pointing out when you are lying, stop lying. You know the special rule section of the IC rules makes no mention of how ICS benefit or are effected by special rules only his they gain them. So rescind this lie so we can actually try to have a polite discussion. Lying is rude and not helpful in a rules discussion so has no place on this forum. Please follow the forum rules.
Typical a liar calling someone else a liar, grow up kid. It is clearly listed in the description of every Special Rule how they effect the unit that has the particular special rule. You are the one making this a hostile and rude discussion due to your inability to take RAW as RAW, you need to follow the forum rules as you are being just as rude with you constant implications that I am lying and not knowing what I am talking about, it goes both ways.
Here we go again someone who has no idea how to read a book:
I am not changing anything in the book, you are ignoring parts of the rules to benefit your argument. So yes you are CHEATING.
IC's are not conferred the rules as per page 166, meaning they are not GIVEN the rules. Meaning that if the Special Rule itself doesn't GIVE them access to the rule they cannot get it.
You are the one being dishonest and I feel sorry for your future opponents your going to cheat against in order to win.
Summarizing what is written in the BRB because you refuse to agree to what is written RAW to suit your own needs is not my problem, literacy its not overrated.
gmaleron, what does it mean to confer a special rule?
What does it mean to benefit from a special rule?
What does the rulebook say about ICs and special rules?
Where do the rules say that special rules granted by formationds are Command Benefits?
Typical a liar calling someone else a liar, grow up kid. It is clearly listed in the description of every Special Rule how they effect the unit that has the particular special rule. You are the one making this a hostile and rude discussion due to your inability to take RAW as RAW, you need to follow the forum rules as you are being just as rude with you constant implications that I am lying and not knowing what I am talking about, it goes both ways.
Where have I lied? Point to it?
No, the On Target rule effects the Vanguard Veteran Squad. When the IC joins the Vanguard Veteran Squad he is part of the squad, however he is an Independent Character so he has to follow the rules for Special Rules and Independent Characters found on page 166. It clearly states that if the Special Rule in some way does not include the IC he cannot benefit, I don't get what you guys are finding so hard about this its so damn easy!
This is a lie as I pointed to. You know full well page 166 which you quote directly here says nothing about how ICs benefit from special rules. So you have stated something you know is untrue that is a lie. Which, as I stated, is impolite and not conducive to a productive rules dispute.
So now you're saying in the special rules description which determines how the unit is effected right? So what does this special rule say? Is there any part of it that rule that prohibits an attached IC from benefitting? If so please quote it.
Happyjew wrote: gmaleron, what does it mean to confer a special rule?
What does it mean to benefit from a special rule?
What does the rulebook say about ICs and special rules?
Where do the rules say that special rules granted by formationds are Command Benefits?
To grant or bestow a special rule
To be able to use said special rule in game
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit." Pg166
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
A formation is a kind of detachment
And once again I'm not lying you need to knock it off, page 166 is the page you go to where it says that special rules have to be conferred to the independent character. That is not untrue, just because I'm not specifically stating the exact page number of the specific special rule does not mean I'm lying. You are nitpicking and so technical to the points to try and prove your argument with plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sorry no matter how you try trying to defame my character to prove your argument won't work
IC's are not conferred the rules as per page 166, meaning they are not GIVEN the rules. Meaning that if the Special Rule itself doesn't GIVE them access to the rule they cannot get it.
This is exactly what everyone is saying. You have been adding the word 'benefit'. No one is suggesting that On Target is 'conferred' to the IC. We are only saying that he may still 'benefit' from the rule since the rule targets the unit he is part of.
This is exactly what everyone is saying. You have been adding the word 'benefit'. No one is suggesting that On Target is 'conferred' to the IC. We are only saying that he may still 'benefit' from the rule since the rule targets the unit he is part of.
I understand what you're saying but you have to read the on target special rule, in no way shape or form does it benefit the IC is the point I'm trying to make. Fearless, the rule that was continually brought up as an example clearly states that a model in the unit affects the entire unit which is why the IC would be affected.
This is exactly what everyone is saying. You have been adding the word 'benefit'. No one is suggesting that On Target is 'conferred' to the IC. We are only saying that he may still 'benefit' from the rule since the rule targets the unit he is part of.
I understand what you're saying but you have to read the on target special rule, in no way shape or form does it benefit the IC is the point I'm trying to make.
And we're saying that it doesn't need to specify that it also benefits ICs since no rule restricts the IC from 'benefitting' from it. There is only a rule preventing On Target from being 'conferred', which does not mean he can't 'benefit' from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It may be poorly written or unintended but that's how the rules read. Permission is given to follow the special rule to the letter. No restriction prevents it from benefiting the entire unit.
And we're saying that it doesn't need to specify that it also benefits ICs since no rule restricts the IC from 'benefitting' from it. There is only a rule preventing On Target from being 'conferred', which does not mean he can't 'benefit' from it.
It has to in some way shape or form as described on page 166
To confirm means to grant or bestow, meaning the special rule has to be bestowed upon that IC in some way shape or form. The rules read opposite, the special rule in question has to be able to be bestowed upon the independent character, if that is not an option in any way or form the IC cannot receive it.
And we're saying that it doesn't need to specify that it also benefits ICs since no rule restricts the IC from 'benefitting' from it. There is only a rule preventing On Target from being 'conferred', which does not mean he can't 'benefit' from it.
It has to in some way shape or form as described on page 166
To confirm means to grant or bestow, meaning the special rule has to be bestowed upon that IC in some way shape or form.
It must be bestowed in order for him to 'have' or 'possess' the rule, yes. But it need not be 'bestowed' on him in order for him to be effected. For example, Blind can effect him without it being 'conferred' to him.
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared."
And we're saying that it doesn't need to specify that it also benefits ICs since no rule restricts the IC from 'benefitting' from it. There is only a rule preventing On Target from being 'conferred', which does not mean he can't 'benefit' from it.
It has to in some way shape or form as described on page 166
To confirm means to grant or bestow, meaning the special rule has to be bestowed upon that IC in some way shape or form.
So the Special Rule has to mention the IC to confer to him. We all agree. Now show it needs to confer to him to effect him?
On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he has it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I am sorry for losing my temper, I don't like being ganged up on and my cancer medication isn't helping things.
gmaleron wrote: On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he has it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I am sorry for losing my temper, I don't like being ganged up on and my cancer medication isn't helping things.
So because of war gear he is able to deep strike, however he can't assault the turn he deep strikes because the on target special rule is unable to be bestowed upon him. If on target said something along the lines of one model in the unit affect the rest like fearless does then this wouldn't be an issue, however as it is not the case he still can't assault.
gmaleron wrote: On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he has it.
You didn't address the rules quotes I gave. But I'll bite.
Deep Strike specifically states in it's rules that all models in the unit must have Deep Strike in order to Deep Strike. So the Chaplain wouldn't be able to Deep Strike in the first place unless he was given a Jump Pack.
However, if he's given a jump pack, and chooses to deploy with the Vanguard Veteran Squad, then any rule that targets the Vanguard Veteran Squad (such as On Target) would also 'effect' the Chaplain. Note, the rule is not 'conferred' to him. Similar to how a special rule such as Blind can 'effect' the IC who is part of the unit targeted. Just like the rule quote I gave above.
Relentless is another rule that says all models in the unit must have the rule in order to benefit. So your example of Tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar does not apply.
gmaleron wrote: On target only affects the Vanguard veteran unit when it comes in from deep strike, it specifically targets the Vanguard veteran squad. The chaplain is an IC who does not have the deep strike rule to begin with and the special rule that has to be able to be bestowed upon him, the fact that it can't even be bestowed upon him means he cannot benefit from it. That would be like a squad of tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar and them all getting relentless because he he has it.
And I am sorry for losing my temper, I don't like being ganged up on and my cancer medication isn't helping things.
The Chaplain can get DS from a jump pack or Terminator armour. Now can you support the underlined statement? Are you saying that if an IC doesn't have rending he can't be effected by it?
-On Target says Vanguard veteran squads can assault the turn they arrive from deep strike
-when the chaplain joins the Vanguard veteran squad he counts as part of the unit for all intensive purposes
-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form
- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then On Target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or rather it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.
Cause and effect are two different things, the way you are asking the question to me comes across as two different phases of the game. One is in your assault phase of your turn and to be affected by rending you would have to be attacked by it.
-On Target says Vanguard veteran squads can assault the turn they arrive from deep strike
-when the chaplain joins the Vanguard veteran squad he counts as part of the unit for all intensive purposes
-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form
- when reading the on target special rule it specifically states that the Vanguard veteran squad can deep strike and assault, it does not be still the on target special rule on the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.
Cause and effect are two different things, the way you are asking the question to me comes across as two different phases of the game. One is in your assault phase of your turn and to be affected by rending you would have to be attacked by it.
Have you got support for the underlined? Why must an IC have a special rule conferred to him?
- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.
But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.
The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.
-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form
But he doesn't that's like saying he can't be blinded because he never has the blind special rule confered to him.
That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.
According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.
- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.
But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.
The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.
And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.
-being an IC he has to have the special rule conferred upon him in some way shape or form
But he doesn't that's like saying he can't be blinded because he never has the blind special rule confered to him.
That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.
According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.
So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Once again as you know page 166 makes no mention of how ICs are effected by special rules. So again in the interests of polite discussion please refrain from intentionally lying.
So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.
I am NOT lying you are exaggerating what I'm trying to say and being way too technical. And you never said anything about an independent character benefiting from a special rule you asked why must have a special rule conferred to him which it talks about how a special rule has to be conferred to an IC on page 166.
Again I am NOT lying, you can stop refraining from questions that say one thing when you actually mean another. This immature technicality game you're playing is getting old it is impossible to have a polite and mature discussion with someone who can't even get his questions straight.
That's an adverse effect from an enemy unit not a potential buff from a friendly one so it's not exactly the same, a better example would be needed please.
But it is a special rule that can effect him. It's just highlighting that to be effected, someone does not need to be conferred the rule.
And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.
Remember, he doesn't use the rule. The vanguards use the rule, this rule then says "the unit can assault"
So the entire unit can assault.
Fearless says as long as one model has the rule "the unit passes morale checks"
They both work the same way, by saying the unit gets the benefit. And the Chaplain is part of the unit.
Happyjew wrote: gmaleron, what does it mean to confer a special rule?
What does it mean to benefit from a special rule?
What does the rulebook say about ICs and special rules?
Where do the rules say that special rules granted by formationds are Command Benefits?
To grant or bestow a special rule
To be able to use said special rule in game
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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit." Pg166
OK, so if we replace what the rule says, with the definitions you supplied, we have:
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 units Special Rules are not granted or bestowed upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not granted or bestowed upon the unit." Pg166
Command Benefits Page 121:
This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.
A formation is a kind of detachment
Please look at a Formation datasheet. Any formation datasheet. I don't care which one. Where on the chosen datasheet, do you see the words "Command Benefits"?
So we are back to lying. You know full well page 166 makes no mention of how ICs benefit from special rules. Lying is rude and impolite. It does not add weight to your argument it just prevents productive discussion and damages your credibility. It is against the tenets to be impolite so please don't do it.
I am NOT lying you are exaggerating what I'm trying to say and being way too technical. And you never said anything about an independent character benefiting from a special rule you asked why must have a special rule conferred to him which it talks about how a special rule has to be conferred to an IC on page 166.
Again I am NOT lying, you can stop refraining from questions that say one thing when you actually mean another. This immature technicality game you're playing is getting old it is impossible to have a polite and mature discussion with someone who can't even get his questions straight.
You never answered my question my responses where to lies you said in response to other posters.
Page 166 says HOW an IC gets special rules conferred to them from units they join. Why must he have it conferred?
But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.
And I'm sorry flingitnow but I can't respond to you anymore, your constant accusations of me lying on top of not asking clear questions or giving clear answers (language barrier or something I don't know) but you are not pleasant to talk to. I've stated my opinions multiple times over this thread and it seems to matter what answer I give your going to keep going until I answer the way you want me to. I'm going to continue to try to have a mature and polite discussion, not one that involves someone causing drama by accusing me of lying every 5 seconds. Had to put you on my ignore list, good luck with mature discussion in the future.
Please look at a Formation datasheet. Any formation datasheet. I don't care which one. Where on the chosen datasheet, do you see the words "Command Benefits"?
I am referring to what is listed on page 121. Special rules are listed under command benefits for the particular detachment they belong to such as a formation. This to me make special rules a kind of command benefit, just put two and two together.
Friendly reminder that Rule Number One is Be Polite. In this case, for example, please stop calling each other liars. If you think someone is dodging you argument, it is sufficient to point that out without making a personal attack. Thanks!
FYI: Users who spam the forum arguing with moderators will be suspended.
gmaleron wrote: But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.
Fearless is also a special rule.
All these rules use the same wording, "on time" doesn't work, "fearless" "stubborn" "shrouded" and "blind" have no effect.
Basically the rule exists , lets take the Vanguard sarge for our example.
On time , and Zealot are both rules owned by models in the unit.
"on time" says, the unit can charge
"Zealot" says, the unit automatically passes morale checks
They both function the same way.
The model has the rule. The rule says the unit gets a benefit.
If "on time" doesn't work, then "zealot" doesn't either.
I'm just trying to explain that the Chaplain does not need to have the rule.
The vanguard Sarge has the rule, this rule allows vanguard squads from the formation to assault after deep strike.
We know that the Chaplain is part of the vanguard squad (IC is part of unit for rules purposes)
The Chaplain has the "zealot" rule. As he is part of the unit for rules purposes, he is one model in the unit with the rule, therefore, this rule allows the unit to pass morale tests.
Interesting things to note, the Zealot rule affects the unit, as long as one model in the unit has the rule.
The "on target" rule affects all vanguard squads from the formation. In theory the model with the "on target" rule doesn't even need to be in the squad to allow them to assault.
A scout sergeant could have it and the rule would still say "All vanguard vet squads(from the formation) can assault after deepstrike"
It never says "this unit" or "units with this rule can x..."
It just says that Vanguard squads can assault. And the chaplain is a part of the squad.
Glameron, there are numerous examples of special rules that aren't conferred to an IC, but affect the IC because he is part of the unit.
We are told that stubborn specifically confers itself to an IC, but it doesn't say that in the rule. It grants itself to the unit.
What does that mean for our IC? The rules say it confers to him, even though the stubborn rule itself does not say so.
Hit and run is another example. The rule does not specifically say that it is granted to the IC, but that the IC benefits from it
Except he does not get the On Target Special Rule as we have just proven, he is not able to charge no matter how much you want him to! Saying he can over and over without looking at all of the rules that involve Special Rules and Independent Characters doesn't work.
Where does it require all models to have the rule like Fleet or Deep Strike?
It says so in each Special Rules Description.
Wow, you messed up the quote on that one...
It does not state that every models have the rule like Fleet in Deep Strike in every Special Rule. Lysander in a Sternguard Veteran Squad will still be Relentless even if the rest of the Squad is not. A model with Hatred can still Reroll To Hit even if he is the only one in the unit.
Does On Target require all models in the unit to have the rule in order to take advantage of it like Fleet and Deep Strike? Or does it just states it benefits the unit like Stubborn or Hunters From Hyperspace?
Zimko wrote:[Relentless is another rule that says all models in the unit must have the rule in order to benefit. So your example of Tactical Marines joining Marneus Calgar does not apply.
No, it doesn't. It only states a model with this rule gets the benefit. A Relentless Chapter Master can move, use Orbital Strike, and Charge, even if he was in a unit of Assault Marines.
gmaleron wrote:According to page 166 in the rulebook that is what it says, the independent character have to jump through hoops to trying benefit from special rules found in the unit it is trying join.
Yeup, just like Stubborn... Oh wait, Stubborn doesn't really do that, now does it?
- when reading the on target special rule it states that the Vanguard Veteran squad can deep strike and assault the turn it comes in, when reading then target special rule description it doesn't at all show in any way shape or form he can benefit from it , or at it doesn't show the rule was bestowed upon the chaplain in anyway so he can't assault.
But remember it targets the squad, and effects the whole squad, which he is part of.
The special rule is never conferred to him, but the rule allows the "squad" (which he is a part of) to assault.
And because it didn't confer to him he cannot use the on target special rule. That paragraph on 166 is what stops him from doing it. If on target specified The Vanguard veteran squad and all models in the unit then he could, much like how the fearless rule reads.
Yeup it is stopped from conferring just like Stubborn is... Oh, wait.
gmaleron wrote:But it's the special rule on target that allows the Vanguard veteran squad to assault in the first place that is my point. Because it's listed as a special rule you have to follow the guidelines in the steps for independent characters and special rules. At that point to me it clearly shows he is unable to assault from deep strike. He is more than happy to join the unit but if he is with the unit the unit cannot assault the turn they come from deep strike.
Because he was not part of a Vanguard Veteran Squad which arrived from Deep Strike Reserves?
Oh, wait, yes, he was.
You need to review ICs and Ongoing Effects. It doesn't matter if an effect is beneficial or detrimental, it was in a unit that received an effect.
Gmaleron - sorry to hear about the meds. Fingers crossed it is under control, the big C is tough on everyone.
Hiwever, you are stating we are being "overly technical" by repeating that ends matter - that confer and benefit are two different word, and have two very different meanings
This is because this is a discussion on the rules as WRITTEN. By its nature we have to take the rules exactly as they are written - no substituting other words.
So yes, benefit is not mentioned. Please, stop using it in place of confer - as soon as you stop giving them the same meaning, the argument is clear
Nowhere in the rule does it require the IC to "possess" the unit in order to benefit from the rules existence. There is nothing on page 166 - NOTHING - that states this.
As such, as soon as a rule benefits the UNIT, it HAS to benefit the IC; if we don't do that, we break the rule that we must treat him like a normal member, for all rules purposes.
Thus, the VVS unit with attached IC remains a VVS. The unit retains permission to charge and, as charging is a unit level action, the unit may charge.
This is absolute RAW. Is it intended ? Feth knows. It's GW. However, it is the absolute rules.
Somewhat tangential to the main thread, but still relevant to the discussion, when reading (very) technically, does the following clause ever actually come into play?
WH40K: The Rules, Appendix, Special Rules, Independent Characters 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. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
We know that any special rules listed on the datasheet or conferred by a model's wargear are granted only to those models, not the unit as a whole.
WH40K: The Rules, Core Rules, Models & Units, Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. Don’t worry about any of this for now – for the moment, it’s enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Finally Command Benefits starts off specifying models, then inexplicably switches to units.
WH40K: The Rules, Preparing For Battle, Choosing Your Army, Command Benefits wrote:This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.
Accepting for the moment that Command Benefits actually apply to models instead of to units, is there ever actually a case in which a unit itself carries special rules independent of its constituent models? Or is the entire conferment clause just empty verbiage without any meaning in-game?
I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".
Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.
An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.
Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?
Answering my own query . . .
Spoiler:
For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game.
col_impact wrote: I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".
Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.
An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.
Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?
Well, first off, the "squad" in "Veteran Vanguard Squad" is actually part of the unit name (seriously, look at the datasheet). It is not listed as "Veteran Vanguard Squad squad", anywhere. Nor is there an entity that is just Vanguard Veterans by name with the term "squad" after it that is not a unit. So, arguing that a unit with "squad" in the name is not a unit, is rather pointless.
col_impact wrote: I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".
Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.
An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.
Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?
Answering my own query . . .
Spoiler:
For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game.
Also here, from the 'Models & Units' bit at the beginning of the rules:
"Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units."
We don't need to equate Squads with Units. Look at the Codex. The actual name of the Unit on the Army List Entry is "Vanguard Veteran Squad".
The rule targets the Unit and uses the Unit's name in doing so. "Squad" is not a defined game term, but "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is. It's the name of an Army List Entry in Codex: Space Marines.
col_impact wrote: I am not sure which side of this debate I am on, but it seems a bit of a jump to equate "squad" with "unit".
Logically squad and unit are just coterminous in this case but they aren't necessarily synonymous.
An IC could be a member of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit while not a member of Veteran Vanguard Squad and the rule in question targets squad and not unit.
Can someone point to the rules justification for equating squad with unit?
Well, first off, the "squad" in "Veteran Vanguard Squad" is actually part of the unit name (seriously, look at the datasheet). It is not listed as "Veteran Vanguard Squad squad", anywhere. Nor is there an entity that is just Vanguard Veterans by name with the term "squad" after it that is not a unit. So, arguing that a unit with "squad" in the name is not a unit, is rather pointless.
That's actually more tricky. We are not dealing with lowercase "squad" but proper noun "Squad".
It's odd that the rule in question doesn't use unit.
Veteran Vanguard Squad is the unit name on the ALE, indisputably.
"Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" would refer to the unit. "Veteran Vanguard Squad" refers to the unit name.
An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
We still have a problem with references that are coterminous and not necessarily synonymous.
An IC could count as part of a "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" and not be a member of "Veteran Vanguard Squad"
and the rule is conferred to the members of "Veteran Vanguard Squad" and not necessarily what winds up comprising the "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit"
Creeperman wrote: Somewhat tangential to the main thread, but still relevant to the discussion, when reading (very) technically, does the following clause ever actually come into play?
WH40K: The Rules, Appendix, Special Rules, Independent Characters 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. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.
We know that any special rules listed on the datasheet or conferred by a model's wargear are granted only to those models, not the unit as a whole.
WH40K: The Rules, Core Rules, Models & Units, Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. Don’t worry about any of this for now – for the moment, it’s enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Finally Command Benefits starts off specifying models, then inexplicably switches to units.
WH40K: The Rules, Preparing For Battle, Choosing Your Army, Command Benefits wrote:This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.
Accepting for the moment that Command Benefits actually apply to models instead of to units, is there ever actually a case in which a unit itself carries special rules independent of its constituent models? Or is the entire conferment clause just empty verbiage without any meaning in-game?
Your observation of the rules is very astute.
There are no such things as unit special rules. There is no section anywhere in any rulebook showing how unit special rules work or what they are.
Models have special rules, some of those special rules affect the unit when they specify they affect the unit when more than one model in the unit has it, or if they explicitly use the word "unit".
Models can get special rules for the datasheet they are purchased from, from the formation they are in, from the army they are in, or scenario special rules. Some of those special rules have wording that allows them to benefit the unit they are part of. Some units are made up of models which all have the same special rules which in effect looks like an unit rule but if you join a model that is not from that units datasheet/formation with said special rule it does not gain or benefit from the rule unless the rule specifically states it benefits the unit, or the unit can benefit from at least one model having said rule.
Otherwise rules do not affect the unit.
one of the english definitions of confer is benefit.
ICs joined to an unit do not benefit from any of the units special rules unless the special rule states it affects the unit in some way e.g. stubborn/hatred/stealth. The special rule is not given to all the models in the unit, but some rules allow the models in the unit to benefit that do not have the special rule from the wording of their rules.
blaktoof wrote: ICs joined to an unit do not benefit from any of the units special rules unless the special rule states it affects the unit in some way e.g. stubborn/hatred/stealth. The special rule is not given to all the models in the unit, but some rules allow the models in the unit to benefit that do not have the special rule from the wording of their rules.
And where in the rules is the underlined stated? I see where the rules say that special rules are not conferred, but not that they cannot benefit.
in the section under ICs and joining units with different special rules.
If the special rule does not confer to the IC the only way the IC can benefit from special rules possessed by other models in the unit is if they specifically state they affect the unit if at least one model has the special rule.
otherwise there is no permission for the IC to benefit from rules possessed by other models in the unit.
Because these are the instances that define when rules are 'shared' (conferred, 'benefit', etc.):
1) A unit containing at least one model with the X special rule can do Y
Otherwise:
2) A unit comprised entirely of models with X special rule can do Y
3) MODELS with X special rule can do Y
Only rules defined as instance #1 'share'.
So: If sloppy writing produces a rule that says, "units with X can do Y", it is not clear with of the 3 instances to invoke. The most liberal is to apply it as instance #1, the most conservative as instance #2, and the middle ground (such as it is), is to apply it as instance #3.
col_impact wrote:That's actually more tricky. We are not dealing with lowercase "squad" but proper noun "Squad".
It's odd that the rule in question doesn't use unit.
Veteran Vanguard Squad is the unit name on the ALE, indisputably.
"Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" would refer to the unit. "Veteran Vanguard Squad" refers to the unit name.
Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?
If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?
col_impact wrote:An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".
col_impact wrote:We still have a problem with references that are coterminous and not necessarily synonymous.
Which are what?
col_impact wrote:An IC could count as part of a "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" and not be a member of "Veteran Vanguard Squad"
and the rule is conferred to the members of "Veteran Vanguard Squad" and not necessarily what winds up comprising the "Veteran Vanguard Squad unit"
Umm... Two problems here.
If you do not treat the IC as being a member of the "Veteran Vanguard Squad", then you are ignoring or violating the requirement to count the IC as being part of the "Veteran Vanguard Squad". The phrase "counts as" is used to when a temporary status is being put in place. It is temporary since the
If you do not think that "Veteran Vanguard Squad", but that it is referring to anything but a unit, than you are ignoring the datasheet itself and applying a standard to something that cannot perform the actions required. I am referring to the earlier reference that you think that a name "can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike."
col_impact wrote:If the rule is missing the word "unit" how is it benefiting the unit?
By calling the unit by its name. This is not a leap of logic, but is a standard English convention.
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
For what purpose? For victory points purposes in the Eternal War mission for example they are calculated at the end of the game rather than during, and additionally we're told:
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed."
Other situations would depend on their own circumstances. Do you have something specific in mind?
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
But you score at the end of your turn. Means that by this logic, IC don't count towards killed units?
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
But you score at the end of your turn. Means that by this logic, IC don't count towards killed units?
Unless the objective specifically addresses the IC as counting when killed, no, unfortunately. This is the RAW interpretation, though, and rather stupid. I would have no qualms about giving up points to that objective in this manner.
col_impact wrote:An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".
This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.
The IC does not become wholly a part of the unit. If the IC did he would literally lose all the IC rules since those count as "for all rule purposes".
The IC merely "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and does not 'become part of the unit'. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".
In fact the entire ALE and individual unit status of the IC is entirely intact even when attached. It just lays underneath the "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" rule which restricts access to freedoms the IC would have if Independent.
col_impact wrote:That's actually more tricky. We are not dealing with lowercase "squad" but proper noun "Squad".
It's odd that the rule in question doesn't use unit.
Veteran Vanguard Squad is the unit name on the ALE, indisputably.
"Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" would refer to the unit. "Veteran Vanguard Squad" refers to the unit name.
Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?
If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?
Techically, the rule grants it by namespace - direct reference by name. The namespace in this case refers to something that also happens to be a unit.
The rule says if you have something named X give it Y special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although the Formation rules might help shed some light.
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules
that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains
its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound
armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part
of the Formation.
The default for Formation special rules is units. Even in the case of 'units' not appearing on the Formation special rules, the general Formation rules provide 'units' unless something in the Formation rule specifically hammers out 'units'.
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.
If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.
koooaei wrote: So, basically, we've come up with stuff that according to RB, IC don't count as dead units when you kill them when they're in a unit...
Not until the start of the following Movement phase if the rest of the unit remains alive, or until the start of the following phase of any kind if the rest of the unit is killed.
koooaei wrote: So, basically, we've come up with stuff that according to RB, IC don't count as dead units when you kill them when they're in a unit...
Not until the start of the following Movement phase if the rest of the unit remains alive, or until the start of the following phase of any kind if the rest of the unit is killed.
Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. See my post above.
col_impact wrote:An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".
This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.
Incorrect. The Rules carried by the unit are applied to the model. The model then carries those rules wherever they go, just as the unit does.
col_impact wrote:The IC does not become wholly a part of the unit. If the IC did he would literally lose all the IC rules since those count as "for all rule purposes".
Misrepresenting a person's argument is a sad way to counter-argue, wouldn't you agree? I did not state the IC becomes wholly a part of the unit. Reread what I said. I've only stated it a dozen times in this thread.
col_impact wrote:The IC merely "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and does not 'become part of the unit'. "Counts as" does not equal "becomes".
Correct. "Counts as" is a temporary affair. "Becomes" is more permanent. The IC is only temporarily a part of the unit, and can or will leave depending on what happens during the game. Again, read what I actually said, not what you assume my point is.
col_impact wrote:In fact the entire ALE and individual unit status of the IC is entirely intact even when attached. It just lays underneath the "counts as part of the unit for all purposes" rule which restricts access to freedoms the IC would have if Independent.
And that is what I said. The IC is operating under the other unit's identity and name while he is part of it. I never said he becomes part of the unit, only "treated as", "counts as", "operates under". You are assuming that I am arguing otherwise.
col_impact wrote:That's actually more tricky. We are not dealing with lowercase "squad" but proper noun "Squad".
It's odd that the rule in question doesn't use unit.
Veteran Vanguard Squad is the unit name on the ALE, indisputably.
"Veteran Vanguard Squad unit" would refer to the unit. "Veteran Vanguard Squad" refers to the unit name.
Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?
If you reference a unit by its name, are you not actually referencing a unit?
Techically, the rule grants it by namespace - direct reference by name. The namespace in this case refers to something that also happens to be a unit.
The rule says if you have something named X give it Y special rule.
Right. And that named X happens to be a unit, and the only thing that name actually represents is a unit. I am not calling on a name to Deep Strike, models to Deep Strike, or a detachment to Deep Strike when I call upon a Vanguard Veteran Squad to Deep Strike, I am calling a unit to Deep Strike. To state otherwise is to be ignoring everything the Datasheet says.
col_impact wrote:Although the Formation rules might help shed some light.
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
The default for Formation special rules is units. Even in the case of 'units' not appearing on the Formation special rules, the general Formation rules provide 'units' unless something in the Formation rule specifically hammers out 'units'.
Indeed. And units also apply their special rules to the models that are purchased as a part of it. Not that is relevant since this does nothing to bypass the simple fact that the IC is also operating as a member of the unit as much as any Veteran or Sergeant.
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.
If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.
We had this out in the other thread. You could not support it then, do not start lying about it now.
Simply put, an IC that is removed as a casualty cannot be said to be in coherency with the unit. If its rules stop when it is removed from play, then so is its rules to allow it to be joined in the first place, so it again reverts to being a sole unit. I have instructions for the first, but not the second. You cannot provide anything to counter this. The only thing you did in the other thread was insist your magic head rules were always in play, and lying that they were the rules of the game.
Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.
So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.
BUt that still conflates "Confer" and "Benefit", when the entire point is that you do not need to HAVE the rule in order to benefit from the rules effects.
Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.
So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.
Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.
2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.
Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.
So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.
Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.
2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.
Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.
Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.
So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.
Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.
2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.
Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.
Which again is the basis for all special rules (Command Benefits ambiguity notwithstanding) - they are assigned only to individual models. There's no such thing as unit special rules conferring to ICs or vice-versa, not because of the rule, but because the concept of unit special rules appears not to exist in the first place, unless one equates units to models, which opens up an entire can of worms best left undisturbed.
I happen to think that it is an entirely reasonable interpretation to read the word "benefits" into page 166 (ie, "...the benefits of a unit’s special rules are not conferred..."), which would be consistent with how rules like Stubborn are written, but that's getting into RAI and HYWPI territory. The RAW is, as per usual with GW, a poorly-worded construct that when parsed out does not actually mean what it purports to mean.
Is an ability listed as a special rule then it does not confer to the IC. If it is not listed as a special rule but is a unit ability, then it confers to the IC. Somethings seem like special rules but are not listed as special rules(like on the wulfen datasheet) and so would apply to the IC's.
So if a unit has FNP listed in its special rules then it doesn't confer. However if they have a narthecium that gives the entire unit a special rule then they benefit from it.
Two problems.
1) Than you are ignoring the exception that is "Stubborn". It is a Special Rule, yet is the example of how Special Rules confer (even though Stubborn never states anything about conferring or Independent Characters specifically) between ICs and units.
2) Most "unit abilities" are Special Rules and not Wargear-based. These abilities have a target. If the target is not said to be a unit, then the unit is not affected, and the IC is not included. If the target is said to be a unit, the the entire unit is affected, and the IC is included. This does not change if the source is Wargear or Special Rule.
Special rules in a unit entry are different from universal special rules. In the unit entry those are not special rules for the entire unit, but are special rules that are given to every individual model in the unit. Meanwhile the other pieces of wargear are given to the entire unit.
Do you have a quote to support this? I have yet to see any difference noted between a USR and a Datasheet Special Rule. The rulebook does not note any distinctions in differences. The only Special Rules that actually have a global preventative from applying are Command Benefits which are lost if the army is Unbound.
The largest differences between USRs that affect a unit and unit-specific Special Rules that affect a unit is that the USRs include the possibility of an IC giving the benefit to a unit they join, while unit-specific Special Rules automatically assume there is always model in the unit with that rule so long as the unit exists (because there usually is).
Nartheciums are granted to one model in the unit. The rule of that Wargear is to apply a Special Rule to all models in the unit. A Chaplain joining a Command Squad with an Apothecary still receives Feel No Pain.
Necron Deathmark units have Deep Strike, Reanimation Protocols, Hunters From Hyperspace, and Ethereal Interception listed on their datasheet. If part of a Decurion, they also receive Ever-Living.
Deep Strike requires all models in the unit to have it in order to use it. ICs are not exempt on either side of this requirement and are included when the unit Deep Strikes. ICs must have it if the Deathmark unit is to Deep Strike from Reserves.
Reanimation Protocols are specific to the model, so only apply to those models who have it.
Hunters From Hyperspace states Deathmarks in the unit may Wound on 2+ after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves, so only applies to models with the name of Deathmark as the target is not a unit.
Ethereal Interception allows for the Deathmark unit to Deep Strike right after an enemy unit Deep Strikes and shoot after arriving. This is a rule that affects the unit, so ICs would be included in this action just as they would when the unit Deep Striked, and cannot legally be excluded without violating the IC counting as a member of the unit like Stubborn or Deep Strike do.
As I said - no one had an issue with ICs gaining the benefit of certain rules, such as a pain boy giving a war boss feel no pain, until we got no scatter first turn charging DS assault marines.
Glitcha wrote: If the IC unit is not part of the formation listing on the data sheet, than they do not gain the benefits of the formation. Just my 2 cents.
Unfortunately that isn't how the rules in this instance work. Because the unit is given the benefit, and the IC is indisputably part of the unit, he gains the benefit.
If they wanted to restrict it purely to models from the data sheet, they already have wording that does that. Whether the choice is deliberate or not, the wording in this and similar formations entirely permits it
Glitcha wrote: If the IC unit is not part of the formation listing on the data sheet, than they do not gain the benefits of the formation. Just my 2 cents.
Unfortunately that isn't how the rules in this instance work. Because the unit is given the benefit, and the IC is indisputably part of the unit, he gains the benefit.
If they wanted to restrict it purely to models from the data sheet, they already have wording that does that. Whether the choice is deliberate or not, the wording in this and similar formations entirely permits it
And if they wanted to extend it to benefit the unit, they have wording they could have used which they did not.
That the formation includes different army list entries, and one of the army list entries is called out as gaining this formation rule- which is given to models in the unit chosen from that army list entry before deployment. Is not the same as the rule saying it affects the unit.
The rule in question never specifies it affects the unit.
The rule calls out which formation selection gets said rule. Much like 1st strike ultra company or whatever, one of the rules calls out the terminators get the rule not that every model in any unit of the formation gets the rule but its only usable by terminators. In this case it makes no sense for the scouts in the formation to get a special rule that only affects vanguard vets. The rule is telling you which models from a specific selection receive the special rule/benefit.
That it doesn't specifically state models does not have to be said, as the rules for giving command benefits and formation special rules from the BRB already tells us the rules go to models for being slotted in the appropriate formations.
However it would need the rules including any wording that it confers to the whole unit, or the unit gets to benefit if at least one model has it as the BRB tells us is required under ICs and joining units with different special rules.
Page 114, space marine codex, item "3" states that the Unit Name is given at the top of the data sheet
By specifying Vanguard Veteran Squad they have identified the unit, by name
It states VVS may charge. The unit VVS may charge. The IC is a member of the unit. The unit may still charge.
The basic rules for command benefits or special rules indicates models. This Advanced rule changes that. Guess the advanced rule wins out. Your argument literally devolved to "it doesn't need to be said" ie rules NOT written...
So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
Special rules are by definition advanced rules. Try again
I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.
They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas
Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.
koooaei wrote: BTW. "...part of a unit for all rules and purposes..." means that if an indep in a unit is killed it does not cout as a killed unit?
An IC leaves the unit and returns to being its own unit when it leaves coherency with the unit or has the unit shot out from around him.
Killing the IC definitely removes the IC from Coherency, but it won't be considered until the end of the IC's next Movement Phase. However, killing the rest of the unit restores the IC to its own unique status at the start of the next Phase.
Coherency has nothing to do with what happens to an IC after it dies. The IC is 'removed from play' and put to the side of the table off the Battlefield where play occurs. You don't draw coherency to models 'removed from play' anymore than you allow units 'removed from play' to shoot onto the battlefield or use special rules. Units that are 'removed from play' are not connected at all to the game play on the battlefield.
If coherency actually factored into it, then units would have to start making bee-lines to the side of the table as soon as they lost a model. LOL.
We had this out in the other thread. You could not support it then, do not start lying about it now.
Simply put, an IC that is removed as a casualty cannot be said to be in coherency with the unit. If its rules stop when it is removed from play, then so is its rules to allow it to be joined in the first place, so it again reverts to being a sole unit. I have instructions for the first, but not the second. You cannot provide anything to counter this. The only thing you did in the other thread was insist your magic head rules were always in play, and lying that they were the rules of the game.
If you start allowing for coherency to be measured between models in play (on the battlefield) and models 'removed from play' (off the battlefield) then you will have the logical consequence that units will be forced to make bee-lines to the side of the table when a model is removed as a casualty.
Moreover, if you do not treat models that are 'removed from play' as not connected to game play then you will have models shooting from the table sides onto the battlefield and using their special rules. This is simply the logical consequence of not disconnecting models that are 'removed from play' from the actual rules of game play.
The only thing there is that enforces that players treat models on the side of the table as different (ie, as dead) are the distinctions the BRB makes between 'play" and 'removed from play'.
So if we follow your line of reasoning, why aren't we drawing coherency between the unit and any of its members that have been removed as casualties? The coherency rules would permit us to.
Also, if we follow your line of reasoning why aren't ICs able to use their special rules or shoot from the side of the table? The shooting rules would permit us to.
Basically, if we follow your line of reasoning we have a profoundly broken game.
So no you do not measure coherency for the IC that is 'removed from play' or allow it access to its rules. If you do so, the logical consequence is that the whole game breaks as you have models in the 'removed from play' zone still interacting with models that are 'in play' on the battlefield.
You cannot prop up a rule resolution on a line of reasoning that if carried out logically to other circumstances would break the game.
(Hint: we don't draw coherency or subject models to the rules of play when they are 'removed from play')
I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.
They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas
Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.
I contend a tech joined to Marneus is part of the unit Marneus Calgar unit. Don't put words in my mouth, I know it's your usual tactic, in the hope your dishonest techniques will sway the argument, but it will keep being pointed out.
They have identified the unit name. Which is the unit. Rules citation pleas
Or, given you still show no rules, Mark your posts hywpi as you are not following the tenets otherwise.
Well troll is put back on ignore.
reported, rule one
Fabulous. You fail to provide rules support again, just accusations,and apparently I'm the troll. A class act there...
blaktoof wrote: So you contend that a Techmarine joined to Marneus Calgar is Marneus Calgar?
identifying the unit by name is not the same at all as saying "the unit" for rules purposes, and it surely in no way is saying "if an unit contains one or more models with this rule then it may.."
You are adding the word unit when it is not stated, which is making up rules.
Just like you are adding in made up "advanced rules" for command benefits.
You are correct.
If a rule references something directly by name, the word "unit" does not get put in there.
The syntax of the rule is basically 'if something is named X give it rule Y".
The rule uses direct reference by name alone. If there were four things named X (a unit, a model, a counter, and a weapon) then all 4 would technically get the rules and only one technically be able to use it.
The rule expressed this way does not provide the 'case' of the named something. It does not say that this something is a unit.
The rule syntax could actually do something pointless and provide the name of something that could not actually use the rules granted. The rules would still be bestowed but would be unusable.
However, the formation rules do indicate that formations list units and the special rules those units have. So the formation rules do seem to generally provide the word "unit" to the rules listed on the Formation.
If the Formation rules did not provide that catch-all then indeed the rules would narrowly be applied to the named something and not actually to the unit. But the Formation rules do add the word "unit" to the rules in question.
col_impact wrote:An IC has its own unit name and it doesn't lose that name when it becomes a part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad unit.
No, but the IC is not operating under its own unit name when joined to another unit. Otherwise "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" means "counts as part of the unit for most rules purposes, except for unit name".
This is an odd argument for you to be making. If the IC lost its unit name then any special rules on the IC's ALE that refer to the IC by name would cease to function.
Incorrect. The Rules carried by the unit are applied to the model. The model then carries those rules wherever they go, just as the unit does.
You are still spouting off nonsense here. If Nemesor Zandrekh loses his name because it was replace when attached to a unit, the rules on his ALE no longer work because you no longer have something on the battlefield that is named Nemesor Zandrekh.
When Nemesor Zandrekh is attached to Veteran Vanguard Squad unit he is an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh that "counts as part of the Veteran Vanguard Squad for all rules purposes". He is never at any time not an individual unit named Nemesor Zandrekh.
If a rule is narrowly granted directly to a name then it is applied to that name only.
Luckily for you and the argument you are making, the Formation rules themselves clarify that the rules on Formation datasheets are unit rules, even when the rules themselves do not specify that they are unit rules.
Does a name Deep Strike, or does a unit? Does a name Charge, or does a unit?
