Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How is an independant character bought from another detachment able to be part of a specific formation rule for another detachment when when the rules specifically limit the rules to only assault squads in this formation.

Going back and saying the IC joins the unit and thus benefits from the rule to the formation is illegal since the IC can not benefit from the formation rules.

Go back into your brb and read the definition of detachment rules. Where it specifically limits those rules to some or all models in that detachment.

gungo wrote:
How is an independant character bought from another detachment able to be part of a specific formation rule for another detachment when when the rules specifically limit the rules to only assault squads in this formation.

Because per the IC rules, while an IC is attached to a unit it counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes.

Going back and saying the IC joins the unit and thus benefits from the rule to the formation is illegal since the IC can not benefit from the formation rules.

No, the special rule is not conferred to the IC. There is a difference between an IC having a special rule, and an IC benefitting from a special rule.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

Except Fearless and Stubborn USRs explicitly state that if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it.

right stubborn and those those rules state that "the unit" gets the rule...

just like sky hammer states that "the unit gets the rule" hence why IC's being part of "that unit" get the rules too

There is no rule regarding benefiting from rules. This is a made up argument not discussed in the brb. please cite the page that discusses benefiting from rules you don't have. You confer special rules and while detachment rules are already restricted to models in the detachment it is also further restricted by the IC rules which specifically requires permission. Neither of which the skyhammer gives.

In fact the rules for Command Benefits states these are special rules that apply to some or all MODELS in a detachment. Not the entire unit or all models in the unit.

gungo wrote:
To be even more specific the rules state assault squads in this formation.

The rules also state no model can be part of two separate formations. The reason this exists is so models can't benefit from rules from multiple formations unless otherwise noted.
First the fire then the blade is a formation rule not a unit rule.

Most tournament organizers rule this doesn't work the only people arguing for this are those who are looking to manipulate rules to their advantage. At this point it doesn't matter what these people say unless you have to deal with that guy at your local club trying to play this BS.

I have no plans to use this at all or any Skyhammer. But it is quite contrary to claim this is BS or illegal if you allow troops in a CAD with an IC attach to retain ObSec?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
There is no rule regarding benefiting from rules. This is a made up argument not discussed in the brb. please cite the page that discusses benefiting from rules you don't have. You confer special rules and while detachment rules are already restricted to models in the detachment it is also further restricted by the IC rules which specifically requires permission. Neither of which the skyhammer gives.

In fact the rules for Command Benefits states these are special rules that apply to some or all MODELS in a detachment. Not the entire unit or all models in the unit.

Straight forward question. Do troops in a CAD still have ObSec if you attach an IC?

 easysauce wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

Except Fearless and Stubborn USRs explicitly state that if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it.

right stubborn and those those rules state that "the unit" gets the rule...

just like sky hammer states that "the unit gets the rule" hence why IC's being part of "that unit" get the rules too

You do know "that if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it" is not the same as
" assault squads purchased in a storm hammer annihilation force". Gw specifically goes out of the way in describing those rules to grant permission for all models in a unit. Going by your argument that permission is redundant since just saying unit grants permission when both stubborn and the independsnt character rules specifically detail an exception for those rules.

gungo wrote:
There is no rule regarding benefiting from rules. This is a made up argument not discussed in the brb. please cite the page that discusses benefiting from rules you don't have. You confer special rules and while detachment rules are already restricted to models in the detachment it is also further restricted by the IC rules which specifically requires permission. Neither of which the skyhammer gives.

In fact the rules for Command Benefits states these are special rules that apply to some or all MODELS in a detachment. Not the entire unit or all models in the unit.

Show me where Stubborn and Blind specify affecting the IC.

As for a rule benefiting ICs:

BRB wrote:Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
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.

It should be noted that Stubborn, Fearless, and others never give any model an affect, it is only the unit that benefits. So, too, the rules in the Skyhammer never give models an effect, but all are directed at units, either genericly, or by name.

 FlingitNow wrote:


Straight forward question. Do troops in a CAD still have ObSec if you attach an IC?

the rule for command benefits specifically calls out obsec and further state only models in this detachment not units benefit from this rule. This is not space marine chapter tactics that remove the rule, it's always there. However The rules for CaD based obsec limit it to troop units in this formation. An independsnt character purchased as an hq still counts as HQ purposes for maelstrom points it doesn't count as a troop choice for maestrom. You can't have it both ways!!!

Furthermore the independant character niether gains or benefits from obsec. It is a unit based detachment rule not a model rule. What this means is let's say you somehow string a unit so that only an independant character is within 3inches of an objective and no other model in the unit is within range. You check to see if the model has objective secured...nope he doesn't.... You check to see if the independant character is in range of the unit he joined... Nope=not obsecured.... Yup=the unit is in range. However at no point does the independant character either have obsec or benefit from objec.

The rule: "First fire then the blade" is gained WHEN the unit arrives DS with the pod. So it doesn't matter if the IC is part of the formation or not, the IC is part of the unit at the time it gains the rule.

For formations that states the unit has the rule from point 0, not gaining it during the game, the IC is not part of the unit at point 0, so is not part of the unit when it "gains" the rule.

The earliest an IC can join a unit, is in Reserves/Deployment, and formation rules are granted even before that, are granted since you start playing, yo stablish your formation, when you stablish the formation each unit/model in the formation benefits from the rule, making the IC joining that formation, it doesn't allow it to gain the rules, EVEN IF IT IS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNIT, as said before, a model can't be part of 2 Detachments.

Also for example, if your IC is from your CAD and is your warlord, and you rerolled it's trait. when it join your formation, if it is part of the formation, it's not part of the CAD, so it shouldn't be able to reroll it trait. Also, if it is part of the unit for all rule purposes, and can modify the original state of the formation, then the formation is illegal, because it doesn't allow that model in a unit when you build/prepare it.

And Good bye

gungo wrote:
You do know "that if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it" is not the same as
" assault squads purchased in a storm hammer annihilation force". Gw specifically goes out of the way in describing those rules to grant permission for all models in a unit. Going by your argument that permission is redundant since just saying unit grants permission when both stubborn and the independsnt character rules specifically detail an exception for those rules.

You do know that the condition "if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it" is not what Stubborn says? You do know that this condition is no more stated as the trigger than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test? You do know that stating "one model has it" is redundant when every model in this Formation has this rule, including the Drop Pods?

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:
You do know "that if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it" is not the same as
" assault squads purchased in a storm hammer annihilation force". Gw specifically goes out of the way in describing those rules to grant permission for all models in a unit. Going by your argument that permission is redundant since just saying unit grants permission when both stubborn and the independsnt character rules specifically detail an exception for those rules.

You do know that the condition "if any model has the rule, the entire unit gets it" is not what Stubborn says? You do know that this condition is no more stated as the trigger than taking a Morale Check or Pinning Test? You do know that stating "one model has it" is redundant when every model in this Formation has this rule, including the Drop Pods?

You were the main person arguing this with like 30 people on 4 different forums. I really have no intention of repeating those arguments with you. It's safe to say at this point that not only did the majority of people don't agree with your agressive and abusive arguments that caused several of those threads to close because of you. But at this point no major tournament or forums agreed with you since no one but special snowflakes like you argues that it works that way.

Wallur wrote:
The rule: "First fire then the blade" is gained WHEN the unit arrives DS with the pod. So it doesn't matter if the IC is part of the formation or not, the IC is part of the unit at the time it gains the rule.

Incorrect. The rule is gained when the unit is purchased as part of the Formation. It's affect occurs after Deep Striking.

For formations that states the unit has the rule from point 0, not gaining it during the game, the IC is not part of the unit at point 0, so is not part of the unit when it "gains" the rule.

Time of possession is not important. Who and when the rule targets is.

Also for example, if your IC is from your CAD and is your warlord, and you rerolled it's trait. when it join your formation, if it is part of the formation, it's not part of the CAD, so it shouldn't be able to reroll it trait. Also, if it is part of the unit for all rule purposes, and can modify the original state of the formation, then the formation is illegal, because it doesn't allow that model in a unit when you build/prepare it.

Umm, Warlord Traits are rolled on before the Warlord can join any unit...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
You were the main person arguing this with like 30 people on 4 different forums. I really have no intention of repeating those arguments with you. It's safe to say at this point that not only did the majority of people don't agree with your agressive and abusive arguments that caused several of those threads to close because of you. But at this point no major tournament or forums agreed with you since no one but special snowflakes like you argues that it works that way.

I didn't cause them to be locked any more than any others.

But, maybe I should just report you for ad hominem instead of actually answering the questions raised?

gungo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Straight forward question. Do troops in a CAD still have ObSec if you attach an IC?

the rule for command benefits specifically calls out obsec and further state only models in this detachment not units benefit from this rule. This is not space marine chapter tactics that remove the rule, it's always there. However The rules for CaD based obsec limit it to troop units in this formation. An independsnt character purchased as an hq still counts as HQ purposes for maelstrom points it doesn't count as a troop choice for maestrom. You can't have it both ways!!!

Furthermore the independant character niether gains or benefits from obsec. It is a unit based detachment rule not a model rule. What this means is let's say you somehow string a unit so that only an independant character is within 3inches of an objective and no other model in the unit is within range. You check to see if the model has objective secured...nope he doesn't.... You check to see if the independant character is in range of the unit he joined... Nope=not obsecured.... Yup=the unit is in range. However at no point does the independant character either have obsec or benefit from objec.

Wow just wow. Please read ObSec again that is not at all how it interacts with ICs. It works the same way as the Skyhammer rule. It is a unit rule because UNITS claim objectives not models. So you don't look at the model within 3" and check if it has ObSec or if it is an IC you check if the UNIT is within 3" and if the UNIT has ObSec.

gungo wrote:
You were the main person arguing this with like 30 people on 4 different forums. I really have no intention of repeating those arguments with you. It's safe to say at this point that not only did the majority of people don't agree with your agressive and abusive arguments that caused several of those threads to close because of you. But at this point no major tournament or forums agreed with you since no one but special snowflakes like you argues that it works that way.

Incorrect; I was there too in each of those threads! Also incorrect because it's posters like you who are unable to keep to the debate on the rules, and instead attack other posters, who result in threads being closed.

Take a chill pill and debate the rules; don't just resort to calling someone stupid over a disagreement on the wording for a rule of plastic toy soldiers.

Once more though, you're trying to claim rules wordings that both state they affect the unit mean the unit and attached ICs in one case and the unit but not attached ICs in another, just becuase the conditions are different. Which is wrong.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

gungo wrote:
You were the main person arguing this with like 30 people on 4 different forums. I really have no intention of repeating those arguments with you. It's safe to say at this point that not only did the majority of people don't agree with your agressive and abusive arguments that caused several of those threads to close because of you. But at this point no major tournament or forums agreed with you since no one but special snowflakes like you argues that it works that way.

Incorrect; I was there too in each of those threads! Also incorrect because it's posters like you who are unable to keep to the debate on the rules, and instead attack other posters, who result in threads being closed.

Take a chill pill and debate the rules; don't just resort to calling someone stupid over a disagreement on the wording for a rule of plastic toy soldiers.

Once more though, you're trying to claim rules wordings that both state they affect the unit mean the unit and attached ICs in one case and the unit but not attached ICs in another, just becuase the conditions are different. Which is wrong.

I never responded to your rants on warseer or bc or whatever other threads you got locked. Nor did I call anyone stupid or any other insult in this thread. Any other fallacies you want to throw around. My point is I have no intention or hashing the same argument with individuals who argue and insult people until the thread is locked just because the majority don't agree with their agenda based argument. It was ridiculous seeing the same 2-3 people argue on every forum with everyone until threads was locked. The only common denominator in all those threads were the same individuals several of whom were warned by moderators. It was never a rules discussion it was a rant because you can not accept the fact the majority of people would not ignore the IC rules specifically prohibiting sharing of special rules to support your agenda. The topic of this thread was consensus on the rule and while I admit the rule interaction is vague and sometimes contradictory the concensus is every major tournament and the majority of online community does not allow skyhammer to work with ICs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

gungo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Straight forward question. Do troops in a CAD still have ObSec if you attach an IC?

the rule for command benefits specifically calls out obsec and further state only models in this detachment not units benefit from this rule. This is not space marine chapter tactics that remove the rule, it's always there. However The rules for CaD based obsec limit it to troop units in this formation. An independsnt character purchased as an hq still counts as HQ purposes for maelstrom points it doesn't count as a troop choice for maestrom. You can't have it both ways!!!

Furthermore the independant character niether gains or benefits from obsec. It is a unit based detachment rule not a model rule. What this means is let's say you somehow string a unit so that only an independant character is within 3inches of an objective and no other model in the unit is within range. You check to see if the model has objective secured...nope he doesn't.... You check to see if the independant character is in range of the unit he joined... Nope=not obsecured.... Yup=the unit is in range. However at no point does the independant character either have obsec or benefit from objec.

Wow just wow. Please read ObSec again that is not at all how it interacts with ICs. It works the same way as the Skyhammer rule. It is a unit rule because UNITS claim objectives not models. So you don't look at the model within 3" and check if it has ObSec or if it is an IC you check if the UNIT is within 3" and if the UNIT has ObSec.

If the IC is not within range of the unit he is not part of the unit. Furthermore obsec in the brb for the cad specifically limits it to troop units in the cad. At no point does an IC hq count as a troop unit. You never gain maelstrom points for killing an hq unit attached to a troop unit on objectives requiring killing a troops unit. You can't have it both ways!!!

A troop unit. Is a Tactcal Squad a troop unit? Is it still a troop unit when an IC attaches? If I measure range of a 3" gun to that unit and only the IC is within 3" am I in range of the tactical squad with that gun? If that gun is an objective does that answer change? If so why?

gungo wrote:
I never responded to your rants on warseer or bc or whatever other threads you got locked. Nor did I call anyone stupid or any other insult in this thread. Any other fallacies you want to throw around. My point is I have no intention or hashing the same argument with individuals who argue and insult people until the thread is locked just because the majority don't agree with their agenda based argument. It was ridiculous seeing the same 2-3 people argue on every forum with everyone until threads was locked. The only common denominator in all those threads were the same individuals several of whom were warned by moderators. It was never a rules discussion it was a rant because you can not accept the fact the majority of people would not ignore the IC rules specifically prohibiting sharing of special rules to support your agenda. The topic of this thread was consensus on the rule and while I admit the rule interaction is vague and sometimes contradictory the concensus is every major tournament and the majority of online community does not allow skyhammer to work with ICs.

I didn't get any threads locked, nor did I ever receive any warning over my rules arguments. You've clearly shown something to the contrary here by bandying about inflammatory statements without actually sticking to the point of discussion, even if you haven't outright called people stupid. In fact it was those getting worked up over the claimed OP argument for Independent Characters joining formations such as the Skyhammer Annihilation Force that caused the discussions to go pear-shaped.

I have no agenda; I play Eldar and while I have started a Space Marines force I hold myself to the same expectation I hold any other player I come across. If they or I wish to use the Skyhammer Annihilation Force then they or I must be able to provide the physical datasheet. If Games Workshop want to introduce pay-to-play advantages then I expect my opponent and myself to prove the advantage has been paid for.

It seems to me you're more the one ranting here; you're refusing to engage in a logical, sensible, calm and most importantly rules-based discussion on the subject, and instead are resorting to calling people out as being cheesy or having an agenda, and not responding to their relatively calm arguments.

I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong here.

gungo wrote:

If the IC is not within range of the unit he is not part of the unit. Furthermore obsec in the brb for the cad specifically limits it to troop units in the cad. At no point does an IC hq count as a troop unit. You never gain maelstrom points for killing an hq unit attached to a troop unit on objectives requiring killing a troops unit. You can't have it both ways!!!

An IC's range to the unit only is considered when deploying or at the end of the Movement Phase. I would even accept the rest of the unit being shot or beat out from underneath it or the IC dying.

But, until those circumstances occur, the IC is still part of the unit, subsuming part of its identity until they are separated.

Does this mean they get the unit's rules, whether from their own datasheet or the detachment? No. Never.

But, much like Stubborn, the IC is included when a rule affects a unit. And all of Skyhammer's rules affect units, either by generic noun or by the name listed on the unit's datasheets.

gungo wrote:
How is an independant character bought from another detachment able to be part of a specific formation rule for another detachment when when the rules specifically limit the rules to only assault squads in this formation.

Going back and saying the IC joins the unit and thus benefits from the rule to the formation is illegal since the IC can not benefit from the formation rules.

Go back into your brb and read the definition of detachment rules. Where it specifically limits those rules to some or all models in that detachment.

The IC is a normal member of th e unit for all rules purposes

A rule states that the entire UNit (named as "Assault Squad" gains rule X

Does the IC gain the rule? Yes, of course. it is a normal member of the unit, for all rules purposes

Your argument lost essetnially all credibility the instant you posts that those arguing the actual Rules are only doing so because they have an ulterior motive. it shows you are not aruging in good faith.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your argument lost essetnially all credibility the instant you posts that those arguing the actual Rules are only doing so because they have an ulterior motive. it shows you are not aruging in good faith.

I think his argument actually lost all credibility when it became essentially an argument that "the unit" means "the unit and attached Independent Characters" when the trigger is just one model having the rule, while "the unit" means "the unit but no attached Independent Characters" when the trigger is "the unit" doing something, or simply being "the unit".

But yeah, personal attacks and wild accusations (in the form of a rant) of other people being aggressive and abusive are a surefire way to come across... poorly.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
ICs gain the benefits and penalties of rules effecting the unit they attached to, per the IC rules. Keep ignoring this, and we'll keep getting threads like this one.

SJ

No, they don't. The rule has to explicitly confer. See attached screenshot.

Yes, they can:

“Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
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.

Failure to read the rules leads to threads like this.

SJ

If the Rule is granted from the formation, doesn't affect IC even if it joins a unit of the formation later on. If the rule requires at least 1 model to have it, then the unit benefits from it. If the rule requires all models to have it, the unit doesn't benefit from it.

If the Rule is gained by a unit during the game, and the IC has joined the unit at the moment, it gains it being or not part of the formation.

Since First shot then the blade is gained after Deep Striking, the IC is part of the unit at that moment.

Any other rule, for example, if there was a formation giving Move Through Cover to a unit for being part of the formation detachment, and an IC from the CAD joins the unit later on the game (deployment, movement phase, etc) then the IC DOES NOT HAVE the Move Through Cover, and the unit can't benefit form it because it requires all models to have it.

Being part of the Unit for all rules purposes (resolving anything during the game that affects "the unit") Doesn't mean he is part of the Formation Detachment. Per rules, a model can't be part of 2 detachments (unless otherwise specified).

For ALL rules, he is part of the Unit, for ANY rules he is part of the Formation Detachment.
He is still a model from the CAD that counts as a model of "The Unit" for resolving anything that targets The Unit.

TL/DR - Rules granted from a Formation DOES NOT TARGET A UNIT (unless stated otherwise, like First shoot then the blade)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
ICs gain the benefits and penalties of rules effecting the unit they attached to, per the IC rules. Keep ignoring this, and we'll keep getting threads like this one.

SJ

No, they don't. The rule has to explicitly confer. See attached screenshot.

Yes, they can:

“Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
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.

Failure to read the rules leads to threads like this.

SJ

If the effect affects the Unit WHEN the IC is part of it, it is affected as well... If the effect affects the Unit BEFORE the IC is part of It the IC is not affected.

A unit blinded AFTER the IC is part of the unit, the IC is blinded. If the unit is blinded BEFORE the IC is part of the unit, the IC is not blinded.

Rules given by a formation, "the unit has X rule" when you create the datasheet does not affect the IC, because the IC joins AFTER the rule comes to effect. The Unit already has X when the IC joins.

Wallur wrote:


Rules given by a formation, "the unit has X rule" when you create the datasheet does not affect the IC, because the IC joins AFTER the rule comes to effect. The Unit already has X when the IC joins.

It is worth noting that the IC need not have the rule to benefit from it.

Wallur wrote:
If the Rule is granted from the formation, doesn't affect IC even if it joins a unit of the formation later on. If the rule requires at least 1 model to have it, then the unit benefits from it. If the rule requires all models to have it, the unit doesn't benefit from it.

Please quote the rule that states the Formation Special Rules are different than Unit Special Rules or Command Benefits when being applied to Independent Characters.

Not in dispute are rules like Fleet or Deep Strike that target a unit but require all models to have them. But even then, the IC is still considered as part of the unit for this consideration and is not excluded for either condition nor affect.

Now tell me where the Skyhammer Formation Rules require all models to have the rule like Deep Strike or Fleet does.

Since First shot then the blade is gained after Deep Striking, the IC is part of the unit at that moment.

Incorrect. First the Fire is gained when the Formation is purchased. It's affect is triggered on Deep Strike.

Any other rule, for example, if there was a formation giving Move Through Cover to a unit for being part of the formation detachment, and an IC from the CAD joins the unit later on the game (deployment, movement phase, etc) then the IC DOES NOT HAVE the Move Through Cover, and the unit can't benefit form it because it requires all models to have it.

Quote for that, please?

Move Through Cover does not require a model have it to benefit. It benefits the unit and doesn't care if a model doesn't have it so long as at least one does. It doesn't care where the model gained the rule, just that one has it.

Being part of the Unit for all rules purposes (resolving anything during the game that affects "the unit") Doesn't mean he is part of the Formation Detachment. Per rules, a model can't be part of 2 detachments (unless otherwise specified).

Again, where does it require membership in the Formation to benefit? To HAVE it, sure, no argument. But having the rule is not required to benefit from it. Stubborn doesn't transfer its rule to other models in the unit, it just gives the unit the benefit.

TL/DR - Rules granted from a Formation DOES NOT TARGET A UNIT (unless stated otherwise, like First shoot then the blade)

Agreed. This has not been in dispute by us.

What has been in dispute is what qualifies as a member of a unit. Those against keep trying to insist that ICs are only part of the unit in special snowflake instances, yet cannot back up this assertion.

Some against would say that none of the Skyhammer rules target a unit, but only the models from specific data sheets. This is also a fallacy, since this is never stated by the Formation's rules.

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

I have the same feels to this rule like the FMC from DS/DS reserve discussion.

OK, let's split that:
First part: "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force have Relentless".
Say the IC is part of the Devastator Squad, it wouldn't gain the Relentless rule because he is not part of the "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force". He may be considered part of the Devastator Squad, but is not the same Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. So it doesn't have Relentless and that is a Special Rule affecting only a model, not a unit.

Second: "and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn."
Ok, here it doesn't say "The Assault Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force", So the IC is part the "Assault Squad"

But again, same as FMC arriving from DS reserve, the lacking/extra word changes everything and makes discussion.

If the rule said "and the Assault Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn" would won't let you charge, because 1 model can't charge.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wallur wrote:


Rules given by a formation, "the unit has X rule" when you create the datasheet does not affect the IC, because the IC joins AFTER the rule comes to effect. The Unit already has X when the IC joins.

It is worth noting that the IC need not have the rule to benefit from it.

An IC that has a heavy weapon and doesn't have relentless, the whole unit can't charge, because 1 model can't charge.
The same way an IG unit, where one fire heavy weapon and everyone else with bolters, the unit can't charge, because 1 model can't charge.

Wallur wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wallur wrote:


Rules given by a formation, "the unit has X rule" when you create the datasheet does not affect the IC, because the IC joins AFTER the rule comes to effect. The Unit already has X when the IC joins.

It is worth noting that the IC need not have the rule to benefit from it.

An IC that has a heavy weapon and doesn't have relentless, the whole unit can't charge, because 1 model can't charge.
The same way an IG unit, where one fire heavy weapon and everyone else with bolters, the unit can't charge, because 1 model can't charge.

That is because the Relentless special rule clearly references models, unlike First Fire, then Blade.

Just a minor point, but asking people to cite rules that were cited only a few posts above yours only reinforces the point that if people actually bother to read the rules, threads like these would not exist. The entire argument against benefits being gained by an attached IC is based on a failure to read the IC rules.

The point being, it is legal for an attached IC to benefit from the charging after Deep Strike benefit due to the on-going effects clause of the IC special rules. Arguing against this requires a better argument than ignoring the actual rules as written.

SJ

I have the same feels to this rule like the FMC from DS/DS reserve discussion. 

Yes that discussion much like this one has a lot of people who haven't actually read all the relevant rules chiming in with what they want the rules to be.

OK, let's split that: 
First part: "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force have Relentless". 
Say the IC is part of the Devastator Squad, it wouldn't gain the Relentless rule because he is not part of the "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force". He may be considered part of the Devastator Squad, but is not the same Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. So it doesn't have Relentless and that is a Special Rule affecting only a model, not a unit. 

No the devastator squad hasn't changed detachment because an IC has joined it. This logic would lead to the entire unit not getting Relentless (not just the IC). However the actual rules say the Devastator squad gets Relentless so it gets relentless, and they say the IC is a normal part of the squad so he gets it too.

Second: "and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn." 
Ok, here it doesn't say "The Assault Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force", So the IC is part the "Assault Squad" 

But again, same as FMC arriving from DS reserve, the lacking/extra word changes everything and makes discussion. 

If the rule said "and the Assault Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn"would won't let you charge, because 1 model can't charge. 

Again either wording allows the Assault Squad to assault. Likewise if you're saying the Assault Squad is no longer an assault squad then the entire unit would fail to receive the rule no way for you to single out the IC when the rule is granting an effect to the unit.

Wallur wrote:

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

I have the same feels to this rule like the FMC from DS/DS reserve discussion.

OK, let's split that:
First part: "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force have Relentless".
Say the IC is part of the Devastator Squad, it wouldn't gain the Relentless rule because he is not part of the "Devastator Squads in Skyhammer Annihilation Force". He may be considered part of the Devastator Squad, but is not the same Squad in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. So it doesn't have Relentless and that is a Special Rule affecting only a model, not a unit.

Incorrect. He is either part of the Devastator Squad or he is not. The rules specifically state that the joined IC is part of the Squad. Relentless is granted to the Squad with no exceptions listed. If the IC doesn't get it, than neither do the Marines or Sergeant, for they are as equally referenced. The phrase "in Skyhammer Annihilation Force" no more excludes an IC than does "Devastator Squad".

Wallur wrote:
If the rule requires at least 1 model to have it, then the unit benefits from it.

This is wrong. You're confusing the condition of the effect being triggered with who the effect is granted to. This is the crux of the confusion.

In the case of Stubborn the condition is only one model in the unit having the rule, in which event the effect is granted to the unit.

In the case of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force the condition is the unit having the formation special rules, i.e. being in the formation, in which event the effect is granted to the unit.

Joined Independent Characters count as part of the unit for all rules purposes, so in both cases above joined Independent Characters gain the effect granted to the unit.


Otherwise what you're suggesting is that in the case of Stubborn "the unit" refers to "the unit and joined Independent Characters" but in the case of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force rules "the unit" refers to "the unit but not joined Independent Characters", which is simply confused and inconsistent.