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.

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

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

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

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

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

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Special Rules:

Spoiler:

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

Spoiler:

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

Spoiler:

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks for taking the time to show that.

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

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

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

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

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

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

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

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

blaktoof wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apart from when it has been.

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

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

Keep kicking that horse will ya?

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apart from when it has been.

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

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

Keep kicking that horse will ya?

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

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

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

as always.

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

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

It is not required to state that.

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is not required to state that.

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

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

and again ignorance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

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

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

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

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAW Assault Squad and Devastator Squads are references to UNITS.

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAW Assault Squad and Devastator Squads are references to UNITS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And ICs join Units, not datasheets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

Its these rules that prevent it from attacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

blaktoof wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


*edit* added the CAD Command benefits as well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Special Rules:





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well done, sir. Well done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well done, sir. Well done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obvious troll post.

how about you quote a single rule...

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

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

Well done, sir. Well done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct. I have yet to show any rule that allows me to treat the name of a unit entry on the Datasheets as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

That's because I have not tried.

What I stated is the section of a datasheet listed by the datasheet legend as "unit name" is the name of the unit the datasheet refers to and is purchased by. And that when the Skyhammer rules refer to "Assault Squad" or "Devastator Squad" they are referring to units that carry those respective names as assigned by their datasheet.

What can you reference that says otherwise?

You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

The ICs benefit just like they do with Stubborn. They are part of the unit being affected. Stubborn doesn't say anything about ICs being affected, and yet, it is the example of how it works.

Charistoph wrote:

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

You are correct. I have yet to show any rule that allows me to treat the name of a unit entry on the Datasheets as a unit for all purposes on the tabletop.

That's because I have not tried.

What I stated is the section of a datasheet listed by the datasheet legend as "unit name" is the name of the unit the datasheet refers to and is purchased by. And that when the Skyhammer rules refer to "Assault Squad" or "Devastator Squad" they are referring to units that carry those respective names as assigned by their datasheet.

What can you reference that says otherwise?

You also have yet to show anywhere in said rules that they benefit the unit in a way that is required by the RAW which has been previously quoted for you+3 other highly vocal posters that they specifically say they benefit any model in the unit, which is required by the RAW for ICs joining units with different special rules.

The ICs benefit just like they do with Stubborn. They are part of the unit being affected. Stubborn doesn't say anything about ICs being affected, and yet, it is the example of how it works.

well on the same datasheet you see the entry for Assault Squad. When the rule for the formation says Assault Squad it means the models purchased assault squad for that formation. Not that the rule benefits a Unit, since it is not a rule that benefits an unit by the rules as written. If it were they would have written it as such.

And there is no need to make up a rule that the name of an unit is the same as saying unit for rules purposes.

blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

yeah I think you missed the discussion, because there is no RAW stating that the skyhammer rules other than the first are unit rules. No one is claiming the IC is not part of the unit it is attached to.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

yeah I think you missed the discussion, because there is no RAW stating that the skyhammer rules other than the first are unit rules. No one is claiming the IC is not part of the unit it is attached to.

So the unit is an "Assault Squad"?

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, if an IC joins a unit of Sternguard Veterans, what is the unit? Please cite any relevant rules to back up your stance.

Is this a joke?
An ork pain boy that joins a squad of stormboyz is not called a stormboy. It still is a painboy. However it is a "unit" that doesn't mean it becomes a stormboy squad nor does it become an inquisitor squad. It's just a unit. No name no title because the rules never state anywhere a character changes his title anywhere.

The other joke In this thread is claiming the itc is the only rule body that stated characters don't gain formations rules from skyhammer. Nearly every major tournament EtC, ITC, even warhammer world all stated this doesn't work. And the same 3-4 people on this thread brushed it all off that none of those people know the rules and only they are correct. Hence the pointlessness of arguing with these people. They are living in thoer own little bubble saying everyone else is wrong and they are right. You're never going to change thier mind nor does it matter because no one plays this way.