Switch Theme:

Nemesis strike force rolling first turn with IC  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Detachment special rules are applied to the units in the detachment. If your other IC isn't in the detachment, he doesn't get the rule. And we've gone full circle again....
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Amiricle wrote:
Well it just boils down to the fact that you refuse to see that command benefits are special rules then even though they are called exactly that. Saying that the word benefits is used in the in that paragraph and that you can't call them effects therefore giving you free reign to apply them however you feel best is twisting the raw and rai.


I'm refusing to see them as special rules because special rules are distinct from command benefits. There is simply no place that Command Benefits are solely referred to as special rules, I'm sorry, but there's not. The rule for command benefits says that they are either special rules or benefits received by units organized into that detachment, which demonstrates that that there are two types of bonuses gained from Detachments. Furthermore, if Rites is a special rule, why doesn't the command benefit section specifically say "All units have the Rites of Teleportation special rule" the way that Objective Secured or literally any other benefit that confers a special rule does? Also, I didn't say that they weren't effects, I said that they weren't ongoing effects, but even if they were I pointed out that the timing and targeting are debatable at best.

And I'd like to point out that you're doing the same thing in that you are refusing to see them as anything other than a special rule, probably because that's the only thing that's propping up your argument, so I would stop calling the kettle black if I were you. You also have not really pointed to a rule that clearly and definitively demonstrated that command benefits are only to be considered special rules while I have at least provided examples showing where there is a distinction made between a special rule and a benefit.

Some food for thought, I noticed that on a lot of those formations I looked at to give some positive examples, specifically the Tempestus ones and the newest Sanctus Reach ones, the benefits listed for the formations aren't even titled "Command Benefits". They are titled "Special Rules". If GW can use the terms interchangeably then so should you.


This is what I mean when I say that you're making these tenuous claims. Formations are a unique type of detachment governed by similar but different rules. If you want to start a thread as to whether or not formations have special rules versus command benefits, be my guest, but that does not apply to this discussion, which is whether or not Command Benefits are special rules. Formations don't have command benefits, so however they are organized doesn't apply to this thread.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 14:44:24


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Amiricle wrote:
Detachment special rules are applied to the units in the detachment.

But it's still a detachment special rule, not a unit special rule.
If your other IC isn't in the detachment, he doesn't get the rule. And we've gone full circle again....

He doesn't. Never said he did. I've literally never argued that. It doesn't matter.

His.
Unit.
Does.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





amricle, you are wasting your time.

many of the posters in this thread will never concede even if they are wrong, and its obvious they refuse to read the section regarding rules for detachments, or acknowledge the section on ICs joining units and how special rules confer. Most of them cannot even read the special rule "rites of teleportation" they are discussing properly as they have not shown the ability to see that the special rule is given to "models from the detachment" and that the special rule references "units from the detachment may do this" Then they go on to say "but an IC is a member of the unit for all purposes" and assume this means the IC gains special rules the unit had before it(which as per the section on ICs and special rules it does not), all the while pretending it also reads the IC is a member of the detachment for all intents and purposes despite the RAW not saying that, and clearly stating that an model / unit may never be part of more than one detachment.

and to the person saying they are unit special rules, they are not.

they are model special rules.

the special rules are given to models in that detachment before the game begins. joining the unit does not make you a model from that detachment.

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.



as most of them do not even bother to discuss the rules, or cite rules, their arguments are often pointless and hard to discuss with them as they themselves are ignorant of the actual RAW and refuse to look at it or discuss it beyond the cherry picked parts that they feel validate their claim.

regardless if command benefits = special rules (they do) an IC joined to a unit does not count as a model from that detachment, and does not gain the command benefit. if the command benefit then within its rules does not state it extends to other models, it does not extend to other models.

at best they are simply ignorant of the actual rules, at worst they are trolls.

certain posters in this thread flagrantly violate the following tenets under a false guise of discussion:
Spoiler:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.


this thread honestly should just be locked as there is no actual discussion of the rules in most of the posts, and when there is it is often just replied to with "your wrong because it says units" when clearly it sames "units from this detachment" then if you dare bring up detachment rules your breaking rules by discussing things they never said, because they refuse to state the actual rules. so you get into this wonderful loop of discussing cherry picked non-rules which of course makes no sense to do.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 15:10:34


 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





blaktoof wrote:
amricle, you are wasting your time.

many of the posters in this thread will never concede even if they are wrong, and its obvious they refuse to read the section regarding rules for detachments, or acknowledge the section on ICs joining units and how special rules confer.

they are trolls.


Having a position and arguing in favor of it doesn't make someone a troll. Having an opinion and openly insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you does.

And I'd concede that I were wrong if someone could prove that I was, but i have yet to see that on this thread. Amiricle has yet to offer any sort of concrete proof that command benefits are only ever to be considered special rules that are subject to the special rules section of the IC rules. His response to me pointing out where the rules have made a distinction has only been something along the lines of "Well, they're special rules because they are and anyone who disagrees with that is trying to be a rules lawyer because they're waac power gamers."
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





you claimed command benefits are unit rules, they are not. you were wrong.

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PM me when one of the "I can do what I want because I want to" posters figures out how an IC count as a model from a different detachment.

Or when the "rites of teleportation" rules entry magically changes in every ebook/written book to say something like "any model joined to a unit from this detachment that has this benefit can instead of rolling for reserves turn 2.."

until then there is no actual RAW argument that you can do this.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 15:08:11


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So, when the rule states it is unit based, and is more specific than the general rile you're quoting, we just ignore the way the game is written?
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





blaktoof wrote:
you claimed command benefits are unit rules, they are not. you were wrong.

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.


Uh, except I'm not. Here, I'm going to try to put as much emphasis as I can:

This section of the Detachment lists any special rules OR BENEFITS that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment.

Those two words clearly demonstrate that Command benefits can be something besides special rules. I just don't see why you keep ignoring that other than the bolster your own argument. For a command benefit to be a special rule under the section of the IC rule that you continue to accuse others of ignoring, then it needs to be specifically listed as a special rule. Look at the CAD in the BRB: Objective Secured is a special rule. We know this because it specifically says that troops gain the Objective Secured special rule. The command benefit that lets your warlord re-roll his trait, however, is not a special rule, it's a benefit you gain from selecting that detachment. They are two different things. So when the unit from the detachment gains that benefit, any IC attached, as part of that unit, also gains that benefit.

If you can explain how benefits and special rules are the same other than just knowing in your heart of hearts that they are both only ever to be considered special rules, then please do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 15:15:37


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.


Where in this thread are we talking about formations, which have a separate set of rules? Let's keep it focused on the actual topic at hand, which is whether or not Command Benefits are the same as special rules, which are then subject to the IC rule distinction. You have yet to demonstrate that in a detachment with Command Benefits they are meant to only ever be special rules.

And don't forget that Tempestus was a 6th edition book, maybe in 7th they decided that formations don't get command benefits for whatever reason, maybe to differentiate between them and full fledged detachments. One instance of a phrase changed, between editions, in something different than what we're talking about, hardly makes your argument for you. There's still no definitive rule defining Command Benefits as Special Rules or else I'm sure you would have presented it by now.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

Formations are not the exact same thing as detachments, and don't give command benefits. So before comparing apples to fruit compote, try to understand the difference.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 15:38:37


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





nosferatu1001 wrote:
 Amiricle wrote:
I should have asked this a long time ago, but where in that formation entry does it say it is simply a 'benefit', not a command benefit, just benefit? Even that weak stance doesn't stand up.

You ignored the point I was making with the Tempestus and Sanctus book 2 formations. In Sanctus book 1 the listings are titled command benefits, in book 2 they are titled special rules. If GW can use the terms interchangeabley then they must operate the same.

Formations are not the exact same thing as detachments, and don't give command benefits. So before comparing apples to fruit compote, try to understand the difference.


other than things like the formation "ork warband" which lists 3 command benefits...
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





blaktoof wrote:

the special rules are given to models in that detachment before the game begins. joining the unit does not make you a model from that detachment.

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.

CORRECT. This is something I haven't argued. At all. Now, let's look at the Command Benefit in question, shall we? (something you don't like doing).
Rites of Teleportation:
Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn
two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep
Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one. These units will arrive from Deep Strike
Reserve on turn one on the roll of 3+. In addition, all units from this Detachment can
both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike
Reserve.

Hmmm.. that doesn't mention models. Damn.
It mentions units. Does that make it a unit special rule? Oh - no, it doesn't because the Command Benefit is a detachment special rule. Gotcha.


as most of them do not even bother to discuss the rules, or cite rules, their arguments are often pointless and hard to discuss with them as they themselves are ignorant of the actual RAW and refuse to look at it or discuss it beyond the cherry picked parts that they feel validate their claim.

Pot, kettle. You keep assuming that I think a model has to switch detachments, not willing to address your incorrect arguments or the fact that I've never said that.

certain posters in this thread flagrantly violate the following tenets under a false guise of discussion:

Please, report me. Report anyone you feel has violated the rules - I encourage it. As should you.

this thread honestly should just be locked as there is no actual discussion of the rules in most of the posts, and when there is it is often just replied to with "your wrong because it says units" when clearly it sames "units from this detachment" then if you dare bring up detachment rules your breaking rules by discussing things they never said, because they refuse to state the actual rules. so you get into this wonderful loop of discussing cherry picked non-rules which of course makes no sense to do.

Except that's not at all what I said. Ever.

It says units from the detachment. Congrats! We agree!
Now - is the GK unit a unit from the detachment? Yes or no - it should be simple. I can prove "Yes" using rules. You have to prove "No" using rules for your stance to be correct.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.


from the above.

command benefits are benefits or special rules given to models in a detachment, for adhering to a detachments unit organization.

lets look at the above RAW,
Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules
interesting so the command benefits; ideal mission commander and objective secured are special rules.

lets look at ideal mission commander.

Ideal Mission Commander: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Trait table.


fascinating.

it doesn't state in the rules for ideal mission commander that it is a special rule, however under command benefits it is called out as being a special rule.

therefore ideal mission command which is a command benefit is a special rule as per command benefits and the example of ideal mission commander given.

therefore command benefits are special rules, as per the RAW.


Is the GK unit a unit from the GK detachment?

YES!

is an IC from outside of the NSF detachment a member of its detachment?

YES!

is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.


so we have a unit that contains special rules from the IC, and special rules from the unit which do not overlap as the command benefits are given to models from the detachment they are part of, and are special rules. refer to ICs and special rules.

The rule in question is required to SPECIFY it extends to all models in the unit if a model has it, it does not.

further the rule states "two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Formation that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one."

As per
all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
and formations = detachment the unit is no longer a unit from the NSF detachment, it is now a unit from the NSF formation with a model attached that does not have the special rule of the nsf formation, as per the RAW, and the special rule does not specify it extends to other models e.g. -stubborn, shrouded. The unit is no longer just a unit from the NSF formation because one of the models attached to it is not from that formation, it is now a unit that has parts from the NSF formation, and parts from a CAD or some other formation.

There is no specific permission for the rule to extend to models attached to it that are not part of its formation, and the IC may count as a member of the unit, but it is not a member of its formation even when attached.

because it does not change the formation it came from, and does not have the option to be part of more than one formation.

and there is no permission to use rites of teleportation on models that are not from the formation.






This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:07:25


 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





blaktoof wrote:
lets look at the above RAW,
Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules


interesting

so the command benefits; ideal mission commander and objective secured are special rules.


Even if I was mistaken about the Ideal Commander rule that still doesn't change my base argument: Command Benefits can be special rules OR benefits. Ideal Commander is specifically called out as a special rule in that line, but there's nothing, literally nothing, that specifically states that Command Benefits are always considered special rules, subject to all rules governing special rules. You have presented no direct evidence or rule that says so, only conjecture and speculation based on opinion. The rule concerning command benefits specifically says that they can be special rules or benefits, not that they must be considered both.

therefore command benefits are special rules, as per the RAW.


Sorry, no. You're making a leap of logic there that goes like so: "This one particular example says it's this way, therefore all instances must be that way too." That type of argument is actually called a plea to ignorance. Ideal Commander may be a special rule in that instance, but RAW Command Benefits are either special rules or benefits. And just to be clear, the definition of or is a conjunction used to link alternatives.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





benefits or special rules, also could mean another way to call benefits is special rules.

considering the ONLY example given for what command benefits are shows both as being special rules is pretty telling.

your statement is highly misleading as it implies there are many examples contrary and I selected one which supports my claim, which is not the case. There are zero, 0, examples that they are different and I stated the ONLY example which shows they are the same.

Which is proof that they are the same, do you have any proof anywhere that they are different?

regardless the command benefit is not granted to units but models.

so the models in the formation have "rites of teleportation" from being models from that detachment, given to them before the game even begins.

which states that units from the formation may do x.

reread what I said above, no point in cut and pasting.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:25:53


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





blaktoof wrote:
is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

So the GK unit changes its detachment membership? What detachment is it a member of?
Please support every statement with a rules quote as you're way out of bounds here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
so the models in the formation have "rites of teleportation" from being models from that detachment, given to them before the game even begins.

Then the rule does nothing. RoT doesn't allow models to do anything, it allows units that are in a detachment to do things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:26:23


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

obviously every model in it is not from all 3, and obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

if there was a special rule one of them had from their detachment that affect units from detachment x, it would affect only those models and not the others joined unless the rule specifically states it affects the unit if a model has it, or if a unit contains any model with this special rule as per stubborn as per shrouded, etc.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

obviously you can still take a GK IC from that detachment, attach it to a teleporting unit from that detachment and have it do something. or even just have the teleporting unit without an attached IC there and do something.

as has also been pointed out in this thread there are other armies/models that let you DEEPSTRIKE turn 1 so you could combine them as attached units with the GKS and still deepstrike both turn 1 as they both have rules allowing them to do so.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:32:40


 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





My proof is that they are different is the opening line of command benefits, which lists them as two different types of bonuses: benefits or special rules. There is no rule directly contradicting this, even your example doesn't since it's not actually a rule and is specific to the CAD in the book.

The Rites of Teleportation specifically says it's granted to units, not models. If it said models then you might be right, but it doesn't, and since ICs are part of the unit...

Units in the Detachment benefit from Rites of Teleportation, but there's nothing to indicate that it's specifically a special rule that they have.


Look Blaktoof, I get that you're going to stick to your guns on this one and you're not going to convince me by posting the same argument over and over, so I'm done arguing with you about this for now. I'll just end by saying that until there's a FAQ or Errata that specifically says that Command Benefits are only ever to be considered special rules for all rules purposes, I just don't see how either side can claim complete victory in this argument. It's something that's going to be decided by individual TO's and house ruled until GW officially weighs in. Until then, dakka posts are just bluster and ways to kill time at work (which I do appreciate on its own merits). We'll just have to agree to disagree unless we were across the table from each other, in which case I'd probably call for a roll-off.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:47:37


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Again you totally ignore the point. Sanctus reach is brand new. The terms are used interchangeably.
There are several cases where they are shown to be the same. Blackfoot demonstrated another. There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





blaktoof wrote:did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

Well... yes. When you said
Is the GK unit a unit from the GK detachment?

YES!

And then followed that up with
is the unit a unit from the GK detachment if the IC from outside the detachment is attached? NO.

Then absolutely the detachment has changed. It was, and now it's not (after attaching).

blaktoof wrote:the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

The Ork Horde detachment.

obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

So you never said the detachment changes, you're just saying it can't stay the same. Is that about right?
And why can't the models that join count as members of the unit they join for all rules purposes? I mean, the IC rules require that - literally.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

Read what I actually wrote and responded to. You said the command benefits rule is model based. If that's true, RoT does nothing as it is a detachment rule that affects units in that detachment - and never mentions the word model.


Ever figured out what rules were broken way back in the post I kept quoting? Need me to requote it so you can finally respond?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.


Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 16:52:53


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





Fredericksburg, Virginia

blaktoof wrote:
did I say it changed or lost its detachment?

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?

obviously every model in it is not from all 3, and obviously it is not a unit from a certain detachment anymore as it has models in it that are units from various detachments and they do not gain a new detachment nor lose a detachment they are from, but obviously they cannot count as a unit from only a single detachment.

if there was a special rule one of them had from their detachment that affect units from detachment x, it would affect only those models and not the others joined unless the rule specifically states it affects the unit if a model has it, or if a unit contains any model with this special rule as per stubborn as per shrouded, etc.

saying the rule does nothing is a far statement from the rule still doing something, but not allowing you to attach an IC without the rule and then magically give the rule to the IC or pretend the rule specifies it extends to the IC is not the same as the rule doing nothing.

obviously you can still take a GK IC from that detachment, attach it to a teleporting unit from that detachment and have it do something. or even just have the teleporting unit without an attached IC there and do something.

as has also been pointed out in this thread there are other armies/models that let you DEEPSTRIKE turn 1 so you could combine them as attached units with the GKS and still deepstrike both turn 1 as they both have rules allowing them to do so.


I think the crux of the matter is that you believe the detachment special rule (yes I agree it is a special rule) is given to units in the detachment so that those units have the special rule.

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.


Note that the Objective Secured special rule is not given to any units in the detachment. It is a detachment level special rule that units in the detachment benefit from. So the IC rules about special rules do not apply because the unit doesn't have the special rule, the detachment does.

6000+
2500
2000
2000
 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





confoo22 wrote:
 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.


Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.


I haven't ignored it. I have, in fact, quoted it. There are many precedents for command benefits either directly being or being interchangeable with special rules. There is no precedence for them to be used differently to allow the "or benefits" clause to stand.
A command benefit that works differently than normal special rules? Warlord trait.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 17:47:18


 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Amiricle wrote:
confoo22 wrote:
 Amiricle wrote:
There is no proof or raw to support your claim that they are different.


Wow, just wow.

Before you talk about other people ignoring things please address how the rule saying that Command Benefits can be special rules or benefits is not proof that they can be something other than special rules, you seem to be quite adept at skimming over that.


I haven't ignored it. I have, in fact, quoted it. There are many precedents for command benefits either directly being or being interchangeable with special rules. There is no precedence for them to be used differently to allow the "or benefits" clause to stand.
A command benefit that works differently than normal special rules? Warlord trait.


You are ignoring it. Basically you're saying that the "or benefits" part of that statement doesn't count and that people should only look at the first part of the sentence. And I'm sorry, but with a company like GW being infamous for copy pasting errors and leaving typos in their rules, you can't cite two examples (not "many") where a formation included the word command benefits instead of special rules as proof positive that command benefits in a detachment, which is still separate from a formation, are the exact same as special rules. There's simply no rule that flat out states that Command Benefits are always governed by the same restrictions as Special Rules, even if they're not listed as Special Rules. Your stance is a supposition based on speculation.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Another way to read it is the writer just telling the reader that the special rules you gain are beneficial. The term "or benefits" is not defined and as such is meaningless.

It is shown many times that command benefits are equal to special rules. It is not shown anywhere that they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I at least have some facts to draw on. Your entire stance is pure speculation on what "or benefits" might mean.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/03 18:20:20


 
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





 Amiricle wrote:
Another way to read it is the writer just telling the reader that the special rules you gain are beneficial. The term "or benefits" is not defined and as such is meaningless.

It is shown many times that command benefits are equal to special rules. It is not shown anywhere that they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I at least have some facts to draw on. Your entire stance is pure speculation on what "or benefits" might mean.


So now there's debate that when a word is followed by "or" and then another word it might actually mean the same thing? And i'm not speculating, it's obvious that it is referencing Command Benefits that are not special rules.

The only fact you're presenting is that the words command benefits were used instead of special rules on two formations (and again, formations are not the same as detachments), however, that's not PROOF, which you have yet to produce.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





other than the proof that was given of the only examples of command benefits being special rules, and the no proof given by anyone else that command benefits are something different than special rules.

Can anyone in this post please show where it lists command benefits and how they affect things, from the command benefits section? is there a magical book section you have to have a third eye to see that tells us how "benefits" interact with other rules, or models, or combine in units? The book has many sections, assault, psychic phase, shooting, choosing your army, special rules, etc. Yet no section on "benefits".

Some people should probably also post where "Detachment special rules" are separate from "special rules" I am guessing its near the section which tells us about "wargear special rules" and "army wide special rules" and "magical pony special rules" which of course do not exist because these are false constructs fabricated by people who have yet to put forth a valid claim that they can extend a special rule granted to models that affects units from that formation, extending to other models from different formations.

command benefits are special rules given to the models in the detachment. This is RAW.

and no

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?


The Ork Horde detachment.


the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.


the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

there is no rule against models making up more than 1 detachment in a unit, but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment. there are also rules stating models belong to detachments, so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it. However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.

the models from detachment x have the detachment rules from x, but not y and z.

the models from detachment y have the detachment rules from y, but not x and z.

the models from detachment z have the detachment rules from z, but not x and y.

we know this because the command benefits are granted to models from the detachment they belong to.

if the special rule in question SPECIFICALLY states it may confer to other models in the unit, then it may. Otherwise it does not.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/09/03 19:38:42


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





Fredericksburg, Virginia

blaktoof wrote:

the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.


the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

there is no rule against models making up more than 1 detachment in a unit, but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment. there are also rules stating models belong to detachments, so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it. However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.


So you're saying that a unit (a group of models) can have models in it from multiple detachments but gain none of the command benefits from those detachments because the unit is not part of a single detachment? But you quoted yourself that all units in your army must belong to a Detachment so how can this be? If all units are part of a Detachment then all units must gain Command Benefits from one of those detachments. But you're saying that this particular unit doesn't because some ICs joined it?

6000+
2500
2000
2000
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





blaktoof wrote:
Some people should probably also post where "Detachment special rules" are separate from "special rules" I am guessing its near the section which tells us about "wargear special rules" and "army wide special rules" and "magical pony special rules" which of course do not exist because these are false constructs fabricated by people who have yet to put forth a valid claim that they can extend a special rule granted to models that affects units from that formation, extending to other models from different formations.

... Sigh.
Seriously. Address your arguments properly and not just to the wind.
When you quote a rule, as you have, such as:
Special Rules

When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit.

You have to actually, I dunno, read the rules.
In this case, does he have different special rule from his unit? It's likely - GK and BA have many different rules (Aegis for example).
The issue here is that the unit does not have the rule "Rites of Teleportation". Ever.
Since the unit does not have the RoT rule, the IC rule I quoted cannot apply as you've tried to apply it.

the following unit

Ork Big mek from Great WAAGH detachment x
Ork Painboy from CAD y
Ork Boyz from Ork horde detachment z

which detachment does it belong to?


The Ork Horde detachment.


the above unit is not a ork horde detachment, it is a unit that has models from 3 detachments. saying its an ork horde detachment is saying the models in the unit not from that detachment lose their identity and take on the identity of another detachment.

What detachment is it from? You've asserted both that a unit can never change detachments and that it must - in the same post even. How about you pick a story and stick with it?

all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.


the models in the unit not from the ork horde detachment, remain not from the ork horde detachment, they remain in their own detachment.

I found where you're confused! You have confused units and models... Just FYI - those aren't the same thing. The rule you quoted refers to units, not models.

but there is a rule against models belonging to more than one detachment.

Cite it.
there are also rules stating models belong to detachments,

Cite it.
so we know that they do not lose their detachment, they do not gain other detachments, and they cannot have more than one detachment they belong to.

So what detachment is the unit you proposed above in? Unit, not model.

so the unit above is made up of models from detachment x,y,z but it is not a detachment x, nor detachment y, nor detachment z.

Cite rules permitting this.

if you can find some RAW anywhere that says a model counts as a member of any detachment it is joined to, be my guest to post it.

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.

However you will not, as there is none and there is the exact raw that the model counts as the detachment it is from, and cannot count as a member of another detachment.

Oops. I just did. Sorry?

the models from detachment x have the detachment rules from x, but not y and z.

the models from detachment y have the detachment rules from y, but not x and z.

the models from detachment z have the detachment rules from z, but not x and y.

Completely invented and unfounded in actual rules.

we know this because the command benefits are granted to models from the detachment they belong to.

And then we have to actually read the command benefit to see what that means.
What does that mean in RoT's case? Oh - that units in the detachment (note - units and models are different... it seems like you've allowed that to confuse you) can do magic. And an IC is a member of a unit for which rules purposes?
All of them. Is this a rules purpose? Well, since we're discussing rules it'd be interesting to see you say "No."

But then, you asserted that the GK unit wasn't part of the GK detachment anymore and have yet to support that statement with rules - even contradicting yourself in the same post.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: