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.

Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?

Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?

YOu can take unit upgrades unless disallowed by ther formation, or a requirement fo the frmation cannot be met if you do so (For example - if you take a Wave serpent in the Aspect host formaiton, you have not followed the requirement that all units have an exarch)

Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit, thus the unit "Thunderwold Cavalry" from formation Dath Pack is still a Thunderwold Cavalry unit from formation Death Pack

Note thast some tournaments, such as ITC, have HOUSERULES that dont allow formations benefits to tick over, however this is an explicit rules change. ETC for example follows the printed rules and allows this mixing

I see guy responding to every single question about IC's...
And always see him write ITC is houserule and ETC is follow printed. Haha. Both have lots of houserules and opposite opinion. This no different.

Just want say that he is one of most vocal people that represents one side of an argument.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care either way. I play ETC but can see how people see other way. Just thought I'd give you heads up, OP. A lot of people have interpret rules in opposite way and will tell you that you can't. Especially on your side of sea.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570/678568.page

20p thread arguing this topic. No matter how much nosferatu loves to say things have been proven and that to not allow it is a 'houserule', as you can see, nothing has been resolved.

Bottom line, just speak to your opponent about whether you want things like this to work or not. You and your opponent should be playing on equal footing.

Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?

Depends on the wording of the rule.

If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.

If it references unit in the formation= maybe

If it references the unit because at least one model has the rule, or the unit+attached character(like is referenced in the harlequin codex for the rule skystride), or any unit containing at least one model with this rule- or something similar= yes

The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.

So short answer, is no.

Long answer is, some tournaments have house rules that allow this (see ETC tournament format)

blaktoof wrote:

If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.

Still waiting on a rule stating this on numerous requests. Otherwise, this is only an assumption.

The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.

This statement is based on the assumption that a unit referenced by name in a rule only applies to models listed on its datasheet. There has been zero rules presented to support this statement. It also Ignores the fact that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the rules do not get mixed any more than the Wargear, the IC would not be allowed to be considered as anything more or less than another model in the "Thunderwolf Cavalry" unit than any Thunderwolf model when a rule affects the unit as a whole.

Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

If it references the name of the unit purchased for the formation than no.

Still waiting on a rule stating this on numerous requests. Otherwise, this is only an assumption.

The issue is that the IC and Unit are considered separate for determining sharing of special rules, as layed out in the rules for ICs and joining units for different special rules. It plainly separates the IC and the Units special rules to see if the special rules affect the IC and vice versa. When the two are considered separate (the only way to do so is to actually refer to the IC datasheet and the Unit Datasheet separately) we can see the IC is not a model from the units datasheet, and at this point in consideration is not a model of "thunderwolf cavalry" which is the datasheet you are looking at along with the IC datasheet. This is not to say the IC and Unit are two separate units, but is simply following the rules of how you consider the interaction between the twos special rules when joined (IC and the Unit are considered separately as you refer to their rules separately- their rules being found on their separate datasheets unless you can find the IC on the thunderwolf datasheet of course...) The end result is the IC has no rules permission to benefit as it is not "thunderwolf cavalry" when joined to the unit when considering the special rules of the two for interaction as laid out in the rules for ICs and joining units with different special rules.

This statement is based on the assumption that a unit referenced by name in a rule only applies to models listed on its datasheet. There has been zero rules presented to support this statement. It also Ignores the fact that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the rules do not get mixed any more than the Wargear, the IC would not be allowed to be considered as anything more or less than another model in the "Thunderwolf Cavalry" unit than any Thunderwolf model when a rule affects the unit as a whole.

Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.

The rules for ICs joining units and special rules has you look at the IC and the unit separately when you determine if the rules can affect one another. When you do so the IC is not found on the 'thunderwolf cavalry' sheet in any form when you are looking at the IC special rules, and as this rule in particular refers to that NAME the IC cannot benefit. The rules as written state this plainly. The IC and Unit are considered separately, which is not claiming they are separate units, when it comes to special rules as is stated in the section of the rules regarding ICs and special rules. When doing so there is no way to look at the IC rules on the Thunderwolf Cavalry datasheet, and any claim otherwise is simply not true. When looking at the IC rules to see if it is a thunderwolf cavalry the only answer is no, otherwise the IC would be found on the thunderwolf cavalry datasheet. Yes it references the name of the unit, but that is the name of the army list entry for the datasheet. You reference that datasheet for their rules, and the IC datasheet for its rules- even when joined. As the rules tell you to do so. When doing so, the IC is not a thunderwolf cavalry.

Unless you can show permission to not look at the IC rules for determining what rules affect it when it is joined to an unit.

Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.

I agree the datasheet is not the unit itself on the tabletop, and I agree it is where you look for the rules and characteristics. The IC rules call this out as well when they have you look at the IC rules(datasheet) separate from the unit rules(different datasheet).

As this particular rule references the name of a datasheet, as opposed to using the words "unit" which have specific rules connotations it changes how the rule interacts with an IC due to how the rules for ICs and Units work and determining sharing of special rules.

blaktoof wrote:
The rules for ICs joining units and special rules has you look at the IC and the unit separately when you determine if the rules can affect one another. When you do so the IC is not found on the 'thunderwolf cavalry' sheet in any form when you are looking at the IC special rules, and as this rule in particular refers to that NAME the IC cannot benefit. The rules as written state this plainly. The IC and Unit are considered separately, which is not claiming they are separate units, when it comes to special rules as is stated in the section of the rules regarding ICs and special rules. When doing so there is no way to look at the IC rules on the Thunderwolf Cavalry datasheet, and any claim otherwise is simply not true. When looking at the IC rules to see if it is a thunderwolf cavalry the only answer is no, otherwise the IC would be found on the thunderwolf cavalry datasheet. Yes it references the name of the unit, but that is the name of the army list entry for the datasheet. You reference that datasheet for their rules, and the IC datasheet for its rules- even when joined. As the rules tell you to do so. When doing so, the IC is not a thunderwolf cavalry.

Unless you can show permission to not look at the IC rules for determining what rules affect it when it is joined to an unit.

We can look at the rules. Nothing actually prevents you from doing so. In fact, we have to as some rules pass their affectt across, such as Stubborn or Infiltrate.

What you are doing here is two-fold, separating the unit in to two parts, which we are not instructed to do, and assuming a position of "not in the unit because not in the datasheet". This is counter to instructions already given. The rules do not transfer, but we are not told to separate the two any more than that.

Datasheets are a reference point used for unit creation and for the rules and characteristics of the models chosen for the unit, the datasheet is not the unit itself.

I agree the datasheet is not the unit itself on the tabletop, and I agree it is where you look for the rules and characteristics. The IC rules call this out as well when they have you look at the IC rules(datasheet) separate from the unit rules(different datasheet).

As this particular rule references the name of a datasheet, as opposed to using the words "unit" which have specific rules connotations it changes how the rule interacts with an IC due to how the rules for ICs and Units work and determining sharing of special rules.

Incorrect. The name listed on the datasheet is the "unit name", per the datasheet legend for every single version released. It is never referenced as the datasheet name. This has been pointed out every single time you bring this up and you have not been able to disprove it.

When a rule references a name, it is referring to an entity. If that named entity is only ever listed as a "unit name", than it can only be referring to a UNIT. If there is a question as to what entity type the name is, ala Deathmarks, than we are not to assume it is a unit, but models only, unless otherwise directed. That is part is the rules not transferring.

We all know the viewpoint of everyone here on the issue. There is already a 20p dedication to that.

There is nothing new said here. Every single point that both sides has written here has already been discussed. Lets not repeat the exact same thing in an endless merry-go-round as an petty excuse to get the last word in. Unless there is something new, lets be bigger people than that...

Rasko wrote:
We all know the viewpoint of everyone here on the issue. There is already a 20p dedication to that.

There is nothing new said here. Every single point that both sides has written here has already been discussed. Lets not repeat the exact same thing in an endless merry-go-round as an petty excuse to get the last word in. Unless there is something new, lets be bigger people than that...

Considering that's what I've asked Blacktoof for, as he's never actually provided support for his claims, I would say that the potential for something new here. We've only asked a dozen times for it.

As above. Blaktoof has made an extra ordinary claim, and refuses to support it with rules.

That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.

blaktoof wrote:
That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.

But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".

Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.

But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".

Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.

You should check out the OED of hypocrisy.

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
That you have willfully chosen to ignore the actual rules as written in the IC section which has been quoted and explained to you adnauseum is your personal decision to be ignorant.

But your cases that you've made above have not been quoted from the rulebook or codex, so therefore not properly explained. You just declare them to be fact without any other support other than "you say so".

Ignorance in this case is not our decision, but yours. Expound on this with the rules in the rulebook or codex or give up on it as a personal delusion.

You should check out the OED of hypocrisy.

Saying one thing and doing another, or not following one's own declared practices.

I have provided rule quotes to support my position numerous times. The fact that they are not accepted is immaterial to the fact that they were provided.

You have provided nothing on this after a dozen requests and more to support this position you keep espousing as above. If you have a case, a rules quote or at least a proper reference is needed.

Honestly, this is cut and dry.

Inthe USR for Independant Characters, the BRB says:

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

So does it say in the Space Wolves Deathpack formation special rule that the rule is conferred on ICs who join a unit ?


NO


NO, it's as simple as that

 karlosovic wrote:
Honestly, this is cut and dry.

Inthe USR for Independant Characters, the BRB says:

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

So does it say in the Space Wolves Deathpack formation special rule that the rule is conferred on ICs who join a unit ?


NO


NO, it's as simple as that

It is not as simple as that, which is why there exists a really long discussion about it. But that discussion has been going on (without an agreement) long enough.


Can't we just refrain from restarting this discussion each and every time? Let's just stick to a summary:

There's no consens on that topic, even the major tournaments aren't in agreement as to how to read this rule. ETC says "yes", ITC says "no" - discuss it with the TO or your opponent.

It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.

1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't

 karlosovic wrote:
It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.

1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't

It's not that simple since there is a difference between inheriting a rule and benefiting from a rule. The IC will never inherit the rule, but is it able to benefit from it? And from there on the discussion devolves into Oxford Dictionaries, name-calling and Stubborn'ness (I hope you guys appreciate that one). Just trust me on that one: It is not that simple.

 karlosovic wrote:
It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.

1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't

ANd noone on the RAW side has said they "get" the rule (inherit, confer, etc) - just that they can BENEFIT frmo the rule

Which is not, at all, covered by the rules quote you gave, like we hadnt seen it 10000 times before...

 karlosovic wrote:
It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.

1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't

You missed how it says it does, though. A common mistake.

It specifies as in Stubborn. Stubborn does not actually specify.

Stubborn provides a benefit to a unit which fulfills its qualifiers. IC counts as a member of said unit. IC benefits as a result. Special rule is not passed off.

At this point, I'm convinced these guys are creating dummy accounts just so they can restart this argument.

 EnTyme wrote:
At this point, I'm convinced these guys are creating dummy accounts just so they can restart this argument.

Exalted!

Sock puppets is a more apt term but same thing for sure. I think it's clear the ICs don't benefit.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Sock puppets is a more apt term but same thing for sure. I think it's clear the ICs don't benefit.

Care to quote the rule in question? The specifics are important in these cases.

Charistoph wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
It *IS* that simple. The rule is right there, clear as day.

1. ICs don't inherit rules unless the rule says.
2. The rule doesn't say they do
3. They don't

You missed how it says it does, though. A common mistake.

It specifies as in Stubborn. Stubborn does not actually specify.

Stubborn provides a benefit to a unit which fulfills its qualifiers. IC counts as a member of said unit. IC benefits as a result. Special rule is not passed off.

I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't and you're dead wrong

BRB says:

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

This rule doesn't say that, so it doesn't apply to the IC

 karlosovic wrote:
I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't and you're dead wrong

BRB says:

Stubborn
Units that contain at least one model.....

This rule doesn't say that, so it doesn't apply to the IC

And that portion you quoted says nothing about giving anything to anyone. It is but one of two requirements for Stubborn to benefit the unit in question. And in this case, the IC would not be the "at least one model", now would it?

text removed.

Reds8n

Can someone post the Deathpack formation rule?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the unit is given explicit permission to run and charge. ICs are a normal member of the unit.....

No, they're not.
They may *join* a unit, but they are NOT a "normal member of the unit"... that's why there's a very explicit rule about Independant Characters joining a unit - a rule which specifically says they do NOT inherit special rules from the unit they joined unless the rule specifically says they do...... which this one definitely doesn't