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.

Interesting thought experiment: Let us say that the 'Unit Type' is not related to an individual model but to a squad as a whole. As it uses the word 'x unit' repetitively through out the opening paragraphs of each sub-sections, or the rules cross-reference sections that use the 'x unit' terminology, it means the majority of the 'unit types' are being affected by this argument. Even rules with the word model eventually fall under the vague term of 'X unit' in one way or another. There are exceptions to this of course, which is why I point out other parts of this section where far better written as they do not lead to different interpretations to the rules within. Beasts, for example, will always use the rule beasts because no where in the entry are they referred to as units.

So the question I have is simple: How does one determine what type of unit a mixed-model squad actually is?

There are no RAW to make this definition, nothing in the unit type section to guide this nor anything else I can find flicking through the book. I can find how to deal with such mixed model squads in certain situations, such as movement always using the slowest models rules, but nothing that tells us how we determine the 'unit type' as a whole.

Now many would say it comes down to majority rules, that the mean average number of units governs it's type in the same way the mean toughness does. Yet this still leaves us with situations where a unit that clearly lacks the requirements would gain the rules being discussed. Putting an ethereal, as example, into a crisis team would now mean the Ethereal can thrust move as the majority units are still Jump. Like wise, putting a bike unit into a squad would mean it suddenly loses one toughness, as the opening paragraph for bikes states 'units mounted on bikes....' There are many other codexes where you would greatly over power foot soldier based IC simply by sticking them in non-foot soldier based troops for extra movement. Others where they weaken a unit to the point you would never use the combinations being offered, even if it is a standard upgrade for the unit. This option leads us with many broken tactics or completely ignored rules simply by ensuring you have the right mix of models within the unit.

If we say that all units have to be of the same type, well on further reflection this isn't so bad from a rule point of view. The real interesting mixes units would still remain unaffected, thanks to the fact their own sub-sections are better written. In short, they lack the 'x unit' terminology that is the core of this debate. Even infantry, which does have the 'x unit' term is not so bad, simply because the infantry unit section has no rules that could be 'taken away' from squads composed of mixed units. The 'unit type' rules are exceptions to the core rules written out elsewhere, and infantry have no exception, so it would technically function. Still, this mentality would lead to other rules being ignored or broken if the wrong mix of units is given, a mix that is often offered as part of the core squad setup in many different codex, so make of that what you will.

If we say they contain all unit types granted by the model profiles within the squad then we enter some very terrifying situations. So many of the rule within the unit type section are clearly meant for just models with that type of rule, and not the unit as a whole. Relentless heavy weapon teams, simply cause they have one jet unit, would be possible. Foot soldiers moving 12 inches thanks to a single beast unit would be common. This is clearly far more broken then the other two and I would be very vocal against it.

The problem is, without any clear written rules on this, we are now in 'unexplored territory' where we are making up the rules as we go along. It isn't even a matter of interpreting them, as the few sections of the books talk about mixed units and none of them addresses the rules put forth in the 'unit type' section and how they should interact with each other. In short, we have nothing to use as a bases to determine what the writers might intended. It is a situation where no rules for this question exists, so all argument related to it would hold equal probability of being correct, though I think we can be quick to shoot down the overly broken 'they gain all unit type benefit' one... cause, yeah, broken! I'm even starting to warm up more and more to the 'composed entirely of' idea but it does have ways to break certain rule limitations built into it as well.

Of course, if you can point me to a page which answers how we determine the 'unit type' of mixed model squads, I would greatly appreciate it as it would be a solid answer to this whole debate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cowmonaut:

I do admit the use of the word model in other parts of these sub-section does give grounds for the counter argument put forth, that unit means the whole squad of models with this unit type,

Yet even the paragraph within the two sub-section that use the word models directly relate to other paragraphs that use the 'x unit' terminology. In particularly, the sections highlighting when an 'x unit' can or can not use their pack, which means theses are a requirement for the other sections to come into play. These are not stand alone rules, they are rules that tells you how you go about doing something. It is the other rules I bring to your attention which give you the ability to use the sections of the book you are referencing. In the case of Jump Packs, it is the first paragraph which informs you when a 'Jump unit' can chose to use it's jump pack. Not an individual model getting that choice, but clearly when 'jump units' can use the Assault and Movement phase rules. The assault and movement section are the how they go about doing so, not the when they go about doing so.

So no, under your argument Shrike can not use his pack during the assault phase to gain hammer of wrath or at any other time. The rules state a 'jump unit' can chose to use his pack, it does not say an individual model gets that choice. For you to be able to use the assault rule, which does say model, you would need to fit the requirements for using a jump pack. That requirement uses the terminology 'jump unit' which, by your argument, is grounds for discarding every special rule related to jump pack use, unless the whole unit is composed of that unit type.

That being said, the use of model still is the strongest indicator that they may have meant 'x unit' to mean squad, which is why this is even a concern to me.

Personally I don't benefit either way, the tactic being put forth is one that I would consider more damaging to the fire warriors then not, but I find the argument that forms around this terminology to be interesting. It also brings to light how badly written this section of the book is, with the writers themselves writing about 'unit type' and then referring to individual model profiles within the same strokes of the pen. That one act lends to the interpretation of 'x unit' meaning a single model having some justification, even if the word model is used later down the track. If the writers used both terms in the opening section, the intent of their words become very clouded and these debates are likely to occur.

As for break in special rules:

The special rule sections in the Jump/Jet-pack unit section use the 'X Units' terminology when assign the universal special rules. No where in that section does it talk about individual models, it's only defining element is 'X unit.' If we are to use the argument that the term 'x unit' means a squad composed entirely of this unit type these special rules are also lost. These special rules contain negative ones such as Bulky...

We can't use the same argument to disallow thrust move and then ignore it completely when it comes to Bulky.

The key to the unit meaning 'a group consisting of' argument is that a whole squad has to contain models of that unit type to benefit from any rule that uses the terminology 'X unit.' The section outlining what special rule the model gets uses that very terminology. Therefor, by logical use of this argument, they loose the Bulky rule whenever you put a single infantry men with them. It is an all or nothing argument, not one you can cherry pick to apply it so you screw over your opponent in the most effective manor.

JinxDragon wrote:
Interesting thought experiment: Let us say that the 'Unit Type' is not related to an individual model but to a squad as a whole. As it uses the word unit repetitively through out meaning even rules with model fall under the vague term of 'unit' because the core element is talking about 'unit types' and the sub-sections are different rules within that greater section. How does one determine what type of unit a mixed-model squad actually is?

Doesn't matter. In terms of RAW and context, "Unit Type", despite using the word 'unit', is clearly a model attribute. But "Unit" and "Unit Type" are entirely different terms in the rules so it doesn't matter.

JinxDragon wrote:
Now many would say it comes down to majority rules, that the mean average number of units governs it's type in the same way the mean toughness does.

I'd disagree with that assessment actually. I'd say that anything taken as an optional extra would not count towards the overall Unit Type. This means that a unit of Firewarriors is always an "Infantry Unit", even if the 'majority' of the unit were Drones. Taking it further, it also means that a unit of Kroot doesn't change its type to "Beast" just because it has more Hounds than Kroot.

JinxDragon wrote:
Yet this still leaves us with situations where a unit that clearly lacks equipment needed to gain the rules still would benefit. Putting an ethereal, as example, into a crisis team would now mean the Ethereal can thrust move as the majority units are still Jump. Like wise, putting a bike unit into a squad would mean it suddenly loses one toughness. There are many other codexes where you would greatly over power foot soldier based IC simply by sticking them in non-foot soldier based troops for extra movement. Others where they weaken a unit to the point you would never use the combinations being offered.

And again, you keep throwing out the fact that the most restrictive rule must take precedence when things are going to contradict. It stops things such as your example from even happening. I highly recommend again to read YakFace's post on the matter linked here and in my signature. He explains it very well.

JinxDragon wrote:
In the case of Jump Packs, it is the first paragraph which informs you when a 'Jump unit' can chose to use it's jump pack. Not an individual model getting that choice, but clearly when 'jump units' can use the Assault and Movement phase rules.

"If not using its jump pack,a model moves as a normal model of its type. Indeed, a Jump unit can always choose to move as a normal model of their type if they wish. Note that the entire unit must always use the same form of movement." I took that to mean that their "movement" had to use the same mode, either Jump or Infantry in the case of Jump Infantry. I didn't consider the "charge" to be a form of movement due to the context. That could be and is likely a misunderstanding on my part.

JinxDragon wrote:
It also brings to light how badly written this section of the book is

GW just can't write clear rules. Its amazing really. But not a surprise if you've been playing for a long time lol, though you always hope against hope that one day they'll get it right. Writing rules is hard, but when there are so many examples of well written game rules it becomes painful.

JinxDragon wrote:
As for break in special rules:

The special rule sections in the Jump/Jet-pack unit section use the 'X Units' terminology when assign the universal special rules. No where in that section does it talk about individual models, it's only defining element is 'X unit.' If we are to use the argument that the term 'x unit' means a squad composed entirely of this unit type these special rules are also lost. These special rules contain negative ones such as Bulky...

We can't use the same argument to disallow thrust move and then ignore it completely when it comes to Bulky.

It could be argued they just didn't think things through in the wording there, particularly since I think this is only really a problem with Codex: Tau Empire? But then you can make that argument about almost everything in the book. This is a good point to bring up. Clearly here, the USR all apply only to specific models, and thus would only apply to models with the specific Unit Type. But then that begs the question.

So either the rules for "Unit Types" apply to individual models, or they apply to the whole unit. I fully agree you can't cherry pick, and most definitely wasn't trying to. It does seem that the rules would make most sense applying to individual models. Definitely doesn't read like it entirely though.

cowmonaut:

You are now you are seeing my concern with the argument that the entire squad has to be of the same 'unit type' to use the rules with the 'X unit' terminology.

If this terminology was not used in the entry listing what universal special rules come into play then I could easily be swayed onto your side. That the special rules section is using the 'x unit' terminology being debated concerns me as it would mean, by the 'squad consisting of' argument, that they lose these special rules as well. It isn't how/when a model with a jet/jump pack uses said pack that concerns me, it is that the special rules provided to units with that 'unit type' are also being threatened by something as stupid as a separate model joining said group.

It is clear these rules, being model to model specific, are designed to allow them to stand regardless of what other models in the squad do or do not have. When restrictions to these special rules do occur, they are usually far better written to make it crystal clear as to why that restriction exists, including when and how these restrictions come into effect. They are not worded so weakly that different interpretations of an individual word would dramatically change what the rule would mean. Yet that is what people are arguing when they push the 'squads consisting of' limitation based solely on the use of a single word that we can all agree should never have been used simply because it is so vague within this context.

In short: I am simply not comfortable with the idea of a model losing a 'model specific' special rule, twice so when it is a restriction rule, without it being far better written to explain why mixed model squads are an exception to these rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post: WARNING, It is long and boring and the above section better addresses the real concern I have over this poor choice of terminology!
I will take an attempt to clarify what I have been trying to say in hopes that it is better understood, I have gone on some tangents and aside from the above post I would like to get back on track:

Why I think 'jump unit' or 'jet-pack unit' is not a rule limitation but the name of that type of model.

The section of the book we are reading is titled 'unit type' and the description within the opening passages describes what the terminology 'unit type' relate to. This description is not very clear in it's wording, that is the problem throughout this whole section, but it does have one thing that can not be ignored or argued: 'Unit types' are model specific! They have nothing to do with terminology unit, as described throughout the rest of the book to meant 'a squad consisting of models,' but are talking about a field found within the model profile itself. This field is termed 'unit type.'

In short, it isn't the whole fire warrior team being flagged as infantry but individual characters carry this flag.

Instead of the whole unit being flagged like such:
Fire Warrior Team
Unit Type: Infantry

We get the individual models flagged as such:
Fire Warrior Shas'ui
Unit Type: Infantry (character).

Does anyone have a disagreement with me up to this point?

Moving on, the following sub-sections of the 'unit type' section are broken down into the individual 'unit types' using their own unique names or titles to separate them from each other. These are the titles, or flags as I call them, that you find within the 'unit type' field in the individual model profiles. It is clearly done this way so when you look at the 'unit type' section, you can easily see the sub-section which contains the rules to apply to that individual model. Some of these sub-sections, the ones that are the worse written, also use the terminology of 'X unit' within their titles. Nothing at this point suggests we have stopped looking at the 'unit type' section of the model profile, so the terminology set forth of 'unit type' meaning each individual model's entry still stands.

If you agree with the two above interpretations I have one simple question:

If the 'unit type' is a terminology related to a category listed under individual model profiles, and sub-sections are capable of using the same terminology to address what flags might be found within this category; why then would we use a completely different terminology when we encounter that flag being used within the body of that sub-section rules?

That is why I think 'jump-jet units' mean individual models, as 'Jump-jet unit' is one of many 'unit types' and 'unit types' are model specific!

In closing: Very poorly written, the whole section should of simply been 'model types' and the subsections in question should of read 'jump models' or 'jet-pack models.' If this was the case, then I am sure every instance of 'x unit' found within the body of these sub-sections would now read 'x model' instead. This is because it is common formatting practice to re-use the same terminology throughout what you are trying to discuss, unless of course you are games workshop editors.. or me, who has to go back and edit for clarity half a dozen times as I keep finding terminology and grammar errors.

As it is currently written the terminology for 'unit type' in it's relation to individual models may or may not be what they mean when they use 'x unit' within the rule body itself. We have two conflicting, and both quite plausible, terminologies thanks to this poorly written rule book. This is very bad formating and why I keep saying the editing team at Games Workshop should be slapped. This isn't the writers fault, there where at least three working on this book and conflicts in terminology are expected to occur because of that. That is why you pay an editor after all, so they can locate and correct conflicting terminology!

However, I am sure we are all in agreement that this isn't the first time Games Workshop has done a poor job portraying just what they meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so you know:

I read what you have linked to, sure I have seen it before actually, and I don't find fault with what is being put forth. It isn't just how this game works, the permission to restriction relationship is normal for every game out there. It is part of the standard format, that you have the rule then you have things that change or are complete exception to said rules. I consider this the rule 'priority,' and in short that translates to 'which rule has higher priority.' The only real concern that arises is when you sometimes find additional rules, exceptions or restrictions that seem to have equal priority. Those can leads to wonderful debates as to which one is the correct interpretation.

Hell, on another thread within this forum I used the priority argument to highlight that a basic rule is irrelevant because a exception to said rule was in place. Then formatted my argument within that exception, ignoring the base rule completely. It came to the very same conclusion that the person was putting forth, but addressed the higher priority rule so was far better to use then simply ignoring the exception which seemed to be his answer, as he kept posting that solution repetitively. I simply couldn't accept the basic rule as being correct, because it failed to address the advanced rules, restrictions or exceptions that clearly have a higher priority over the basic rules.

So yes this concept is not unknown to me but I don't think it is relevant here as we are not discussing which restriction or rule has higher priority. We are discussing what they could of meant when they used key words within an individual rule subset. It is clear that this rule has priority over the basic rules, they are the very advanced rules used as an example within the link you provided, but we are discussing what this rule may or may not mean. The poorly written way the terminology has been presented leads to different, and equally plausible, possible meanings for that specific rule.

I do feel compelled to point this out: If we take the 'squad consists of model' interpretation we end up with a situation where restrictions or other advanced rules are being ignored in favor of the standard rules because none of these advanced rules and restrictions can apply thanks to poorly used terminology within an individual rule subset.

PS - I have always gone by this simple rule of thumb when I encounter different interpretations that hold equal priority: "What screws me over the most." I wish I could say I am just a nice guy and give my opponent the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these things but that isn't the truth. I simply know how the universe works and it never is in my favor, one of the reasons why I have the title jinx after all. In the current debase, either outcome doesn't screw me over at all as I don't use mixed units like those being discussed... so I can not just use my normal rule of thumb.

This discussion is very useful because it does often aplly to my Crisis Suit unit Accompinied by my Jetbike Farseer. i have spent ages arguing that my unit can run in the shooting phase, because can just turboboost. Even if I can't use the assault move afterwards because units that turbo boost can't voluntarily move later in the turn. (Although I can assault move the rest of the unit as long as they stay in coherency.)

Keep up the good work.

As we all seem to agree that unit type is a model atribute, not a unit, would someone show me where in the rules, litterally anywhere, that a whole squad is given an overall type? I can't find it, and would like to propose the theory that in 6th edition, there is no such thing.

cryhavok wrote:
As we all seem to agree that unit type is a model atribute, not a unit, would someone show me where in the rules, litterally anywhere, that a whole squad is given an overall type? I can't find it, and would like to propose the theory that in 6th edition, there is no such thing.

This.

The rulebook specifically calls unit type a part of the characteristics chart.

Therefore rules apply on a per-model basis, not on a per-unit basis.

Coyote81 wrote:
This discussion is very useful because it does often aplly to my Crisis Suit unit Accompinied by my Jetbike Farseer. i have spent ages arguing that my unit can run in the shooting phase, because can just turboboost. Even if I can't use the assault move afterwards because units that turbo boost can't voluntarily move later in the turn. (Although I can assault move the rest of the unit as long as they stay in coherency.)

Keep up the good work.

I don't have my rulebook on me to quote rules, but how I think it would work is:
-unless turboboost says they get that rule instead of being able to run, nothing denies the permission all non-vehicle models are given to run.
-unit type being a model attribute, I would say the unit reffered for the jetbike's turboboost restriction is the model with that unit type. If a model did not turboboost, it is not restricted against using it's thrust move later. However as the whole unit has to charge or none can, they would not be able to charge because the jetbike turboboosted.
I believe raw supports this, at least the way I interpret it, but I dont have my brb to double check.

cryhavok wrote:

Coyote81 wrote:
This discussion is very useful because it does often aplly to my Crisis Suit unit Accompinied by my Jetbike Farseer. i have spent ages arguing that my unit can run in the shooting phase, because can just turboboost. Even if I can't use the assault move afterwards because units that turbo boost can't voluntarily move later in the turn. (Although I can assault move the rest of the unit as long as they stay in coherency.)

Keep up the good work.

I don't have my rulebook on me to quote rules, but how I think it would work is:
-unless turboboost says they get that rule instead of being able to run, nothing denies the permission all non-vehicle models are given to run.
-unit type being a model attribute, I would say the unit reffered for the jetbike's turboboost restriction is the model with that unit type. If a model did not turboboost, it is not restricted against using it's thrust move later. However as the whole unit has to charge or none can, they would not be able to charge because the jetbike turboboosted.
I believe raw supports this, at least the way I interpret it, but I dont have my brb to double check.

You can't run in the movement phase if you turbo boost. HOWEVER:

thrust moves are simply movements in the assault phase. They are movement phase type moves, which means you can turbo boost your farseer out of the squad, run then thrust to join the farseer.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

Coyote81 wrote:
This discussion is very useful because it does often aplly to my Crisis Suit unit Accompinied by my Jetbike Farseer. i have spent ages arguing that my unit can run in the shooting phase, because can just turboboost. Even if I can't use the assault move afterwards because units that turbo boost can't voluntarily move later in the turn. (Although I can assault move the rest of the unit as long as they stay in coherency.)

Keep up the good work.

I don't have my rulebook on me to quote rules, but how I think it would work is:
-unless turboboost says they get that rule instead of being able to run, nothing denies the permission all non-vehicle models are given to run.
-unit type being a model attribute, I would say the unit reffered for the jetbike's turboboost restriction is the model with that unit type. If a model did not turboboost, it is not restricted against using it's thrust move later. However as the whole unit has to charge or none can, they would not be able to charge because the jetbike turboboosted.
I believe raw supports this, at least the way I interpret it, but I dont have my brb to double check.

You can't run in the movement phase if you turbo boost. HOWEVER:

thrust moves are simply movements in the assault phase. They are movement phase type moves, which means you can turbo boost your farseer out of the squad, run then thrust to join the farseer.

Except you can only join/voluntarily leave a unit in the movement phase.

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you can only join/voluntarily leave a unit in the movement phase.

Page 47:

They move just as they would when using their jet packs in the movement phase

Movement has nothing to do with when you join.

rigeld2 wrote:
Movement has nothing to do with when you join.

Independent character specifically denies this, so you're correct.

In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.

IC's cannot join/leave another unit except in the Movement Phase. This is another place where context matters. The Jump Pack rules say that you move like you would in the movement phase in the assault phase. Contextually, this is referring to the rules that were given immediately prior detailing how such units move in the Movement Phase.

This is also another place where Specific > General and Most Restrictive Wins. This doesn't grant IC's an ability to join/leave squads outside of the specified time. The IC rules are very specific that its where the IC is at the end of the Movement Phase that dictates if he/she is joined to another unit.

cowmonaut wrote:
In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.

IC's cannot join/leave another unit except in the Movement Phase. This is another place where context matters. The Jump Pack rules say that you move like you would in the movement phase in the assault phase. Contextually, this is referring to the rules that were given immediately prior detailing how such units move in the Movement Phase.

This is also another place where Specific > General and Most Restrictive Wins. This doesn't grant IC's an ability to join/leave squads outside of the specified time. The IC rules are very specific that its where the IC is at the end of the Movement Phase that dictates if he/she is joined to another unit.

Psst

I just said that.

No you didn't:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
thrust moves are simply movements in the assault phase. They are movement phase type moves, which means you can turbo boost your farseer out of the squad, run then thrust to join the farseer.

cowmonaut wrote:No you didn't:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
thrust moves are simply movements in the assault phase. They are movement phase type moves, which means you can turbo boost your farseer out of the squad, run then thrust to join the farseer.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Movement has nothing to do with when you join.

Independent character specifically denies this, so you're correct.

Yes, he did. Reading the entire thread for the win!

Oh I read his post, just didn't think that's what he was saying since he had just given an example of an illegal move just prior to that comment. I didn't read that last post as a "correction: I was wrong!" kind of comment. Hence why I made a clarifying comment. But it matters not since we're all agreed apparently.

I have come to a realization....

I am spending way to much time on this damn forum and not enough time with friends, family, eating or even sleeping. This is a 'me problem' so you can ignore it but it does mean I will be backing away from this argument. It, being the one that consumes the most of my time, has gone on long enough for me and no clear conclusion has been achieved.

I will point out two things in closing, and try to cut it short which is a problem for me.

First I want to thank you Cowmonaut for putting up with my dribble. While I am not conceding the point to you, I do acknowledge that either interpretation may be the correct one. This is not surprising as, which you kindly pointed out, the more you play this game the more you come across these sort of situations. I am, for all purposes, new to this game and even I can not count on one hand all the 'gray areas' that I have personally encountered.

That is pretty sad in and of itself.

Second... you know what, I will cut it short. I was going to suggest a possible solution based on which interpretation causes the least disruption to standard game-play. A simple chart of 'what is lost and gained' by each interpretation to see which causes the least disruptions. Someone else can feel free to do that if you want, I feel it would be wading back into the debate if I start typing it up now.

So thank you again, I look forward to reading about a hell of a lot more 'gray areas' in the next few weeks...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know I shouldn't come back to comment here, but I found something very interesting that has to be included when you think on this terminology.

Page 66 of the Chaos codex talks about a piece of war-gear that is simply a jump pack, by that very name. This special issue war-gear has one simple sentence that sums up what it does rule wise. That sentence clearly indicates it is talking about a single model and states that unit has the 'jump unit type.'

I then looked through the dark angle codex to see what it says about jump pack there, same sentence.

Now we have at least two instance where the term 'jump pack unit' is being directly applied to an individual model. This is further strengthening the argument that 'x unit' is terminology that relates to individual models and not whole squads. It think, at this point in time, we can clearly put the debate to rest.

Jump units and Jet-Pack units refer to individual models!

cryhavok wrote:

Coyote81 wrote:
This discussion is very useful because it does often aplly to my Crisis Suit unit Accompinied by my Jetbike Farseer. i have spent ages arguing that my unit can run in the shooting phase, because can just turboboost. Even if I can't use the assault move afterwards because units that turbo boost can't voluntarily move later in the turn. (Although I can assault move the rest of the unit as long as they stay in coherency.)

Keep up the good work.

I don't have my rulebook on me to quote rules, but how I think it would work is:
-unless turboboost says they get that rule instead of being able to run, nothing denies the permission all non-vehicle models are given to run.
-unit type being a model attribute, I would say the unit reffered for the jetbike's turboboost restriction is the model with that unit type. If a model did not turboboost, it is not restricted against using it's thrust move later. However as the whole unit has to charge or none can, they would not be able to charge because the jetbike turboboosted.
I believe raw supports this, at least the way I interpret it, but I dont have my brb to double check.

Under turboboost In the bike section, Bikes cannot run, they instead use turboboost.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am spending way to much time on this damn forum and not enough time with friends, family, eating or even sleeping.

Well, it's a good thing the OP provided us with "A definitive answer" so nobody had to argue about it any more.