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.

Right, and any bonuses a unit gains from being a part of a specific detachment do not confer to other units or models that are not a part of that specific detachment unless the ability specifically says so.
So in this case one of the rules granted for NSF "In addition, all units from this Detachment can both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike" would instead need to state: "In addition, all units from this Detachment and any attached models can both Run and Shoot, in any order, in the same turn that they arrive from Deep Strike" in order for an IC from outside the detachment to gain the benefit as well.

Incorrect.
There's a unit from the detachment. You're attempting to forbid a single model in that unit from running and shooting.
Ignore the fact that it's an IC - because that's irrelevant. You're required to treat the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Cite a rule supporting the denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

Isn't this by definition a detachment special rule?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

Isn't this by definition a detachment special rule?

No its a command benefit

 CrownAxe wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

Isn't this by definition a detachment special rule?

No its a command benefit

Which according to the BRB, applies to models in the Detachment.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

Isn't this by definition a detachment special rule?

No its a command benefit

Which according to the BRB, applies to models in the Detachment.

The Rites of Teleportation specifically affects units not models (and codex trumps rules book)

CrownAxe, you will notice that all detachments (including CAD/AD) refer to units for Command benefits.

 Happyjew wrote:
CrownAxe, you will notice that all detachments (including CAD/AD) refer to units for Command benefits.

And? Its still more specific then the general explanation for command benefits given by the BRB

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
CrownAxe, you will notice that all detachments (including CAD/AD) refer to units for Command benefits.

And? Its still more specific then the general explanation for command benefits given by the BRB

So than GW wrote a rule that does absolutely nothing, again?

Just another scenario where something best addressed as 'Models' is being addressed as 'Units.'
Wonder how long till Game Workshop simply makes them synonymous with each other....

Happyjew,
They do it all the time, it is just a lot more obvious if we focus only on the Written Rules and stop trying to guess what the Authors might have intended by filling in the gaps.

 Happyjew wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
CrownAxe, you will notice that all detachments (including CAD/AD) refer to units for Command benefits.

And? Its still more specific then the general explanation for command benefits given by the BRB

So than GW wrote a rule that does absolutely nothing, again?

No they just wrote a rule uses words that don't amount to anything (like when they refer to blast markers as templates)

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I believe one of the rules he is referring to is "Unless otherwise specified, unit special rules are not conferred to an Independent Character, and vice versa."

Possibly, but those aren't broken simply by joining units, which was his claim.

It's also an irrelevant rule to quote.

Not necessarily. If the rule is a unit special rule, then since it does not specify otherwise, it would not confer to an attached IC.

I think the better question is at what point is a special rule a "unit special rule"?

Isn't this by definition a detachment special rule?

No its a command benefit

Which according to the BRB, applies to models in the Detachment.

The Rites of Teleportation specifically affects units not models (and codex trumps rules book)

not quite.

it does not say "units get to"

it refers to "units from that detachment" meaning units from the FoC in that detachment, if the unit is not from that FoC it does not have the special rule.

as per

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.

if the special rule does not specifically state it extends to all models in the unit, or if any model in the unit has it, the IC does not gain the special rule.

in the case of rites of teleporation the IC absolutely does not gain the special rule if it was selected as a unit in a FoC outside of the NSF detachment.

A command benefit IS a special rule subject to the rules on special rules.

blaktoof wrote:
in the case of rites of teleporation the IC absolutely does not gain the special rule if it was selected as a unit in a FoC outside of the NSF detachment.

Units from the NSF detachment get the special rule. Agreed?
ICs are members of the unit for all rule purposes. Agreed?
You are asserting that a member of the unit is exempt from a special rule that isn't the unit's special rule (it's a detachment special rule). Agreed?

Cite the reason for the denial.
I also assume that you'd deny that an IC that has joined a troop choice benefits from Objective Secured if he's the only model within 3" of an objective. That would at least be consistently incorrect.

it refers to "units from that detachment" meaning units from the FoC in that detachment, if the unit is not from that FoC it does not have the special rule.

I'd love to see you prove that the GK unit isn't a member of that detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amiricle wrote:
A command benefit IS a special rule subject to the rules on special rules.

It's a special rule - that belongs to the detachment, not the units.

edit:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


Let's say we have a.SM IC, who is our warlord.from a CAD. He joins a GK unit that has the special rule "rites of teleportation".

We claim "he's part of this unit for all rules purposes".

Nevermind that we just broke at least 2 RAW, the one on IC s and special rules, and the one on detachments....

Quote them. Before posting anything else, quote what rules you just broke.

Still waiting by the way. What rules were broken here?

the unit is not from the gk detachment, you cannot change detachments and cannot be in more than one detachment.

if you join an IC from detachment A to detachment B's unit, the IC is still from Detachment A, and is never selected from the FoC or required formation units for detachment B.

Cite permission to count as a member of another detachment, or switch detachments, so that you can properly support your claim.

The special rule in question does not extend to the unit as you have erroneously stated many many times, it extends to "units from the detachment" no part of the actual special rule specifically states it extends to other models in the unit that are not from the detachment.


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



so how does the BA IC switch detachments to the GK NSF one, please cite a rule from any book.

because the above statement is the only way the BA IC is gaining the special rule, as the RAW states its a special rule for units from that detachment, and models may not belong to more than one detachment.

Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements.



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



As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.



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



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



In the following army list

CAD-
HQ- Chapter master with whatever
Troops- Scouts
Troops- Scouts

NSF-
HQ-Librarian
Troop-Strike Squad

Which detachment does the chapter master belong to?

if it joins the strike squad, which detachment does it belong to?

The RAW answer is the same for both of the above questions.

rites of teleportation is a special rule that is granted to units chosen from the NSF detachment, which detachment is the Chapter master from?


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.



The special rule obviously does not extend to all models in the unit from its wording, and is obviously only granted to units from the NSF detachment.

cite permission for the the IC to switch detachments.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/612929.page

I think this need a Lock & Combine

Rigel, you quote me stating that a command benefit is a special rule that belongs to the detachment, not the unit. That is a pointless distinction, but even going with that we just come back to what Blaktoof keeps saying. A model or unit can't belong to more than 1 detachment. It would not gain the benefit of a detachment command benefit if it is not in the detachment. Switch and join any and all the units he pleases, but he will still remain part of his original detachment with the special rules that entails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/612929.page

I think this need a Lock & Combine

I agree

blaktoof wrote:
the unit is not from the gk detachment, you cannot change detachments and cannot be in more than one detachment.

if you join an IC from detachment A to detachment B's unit, the IC is still from Detachment A, and is never selected from the FoC or required formation units for detachment B.

No one is arguing this.

Cite permission to count as a member of another detachment, or switch detachments, so that you can properly support your claim.

Not required.

The special rule in question does not extend to the unit as you have erroneously stated many many times, it extends to "units from the detachment" no part of the actual special rule specifically states it extends to other models in the unit that are not from the detachment.

Why are you extrapolating "only models from the detachment" when the actual rule says "units from the detachment"?

[quote[because the above statement is the only way the BA IC is gaining the special rule, as the RAW states its a special rule for units from that detachment, and models may not belong to more than one detachment.

If you join an IC to a unit from another detachment it does not have permission to count as a unit from that detachment.

The Special rule is granted to the unit from that detachment before the game even begins.

as per

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.

the special rule does not state it affects the unit, it affects units in the detachment which the IC from the non-NSF detachment is not from, and does not gain the rule.

the whole basis of your rules discussion is that "units from the detachment" means "any model attached to a unit from this detachment" which is clearly not stated anywhere.

explain what makes an IC attached to a unit from the NSF a unit from the NSF detachment

In the following army list

CAD-
HQ- Chapter master with whatever
Troops- Scouts
Troops- Scouts

NSF-
HQ-Librarian
Troop-Strike Squad

Which detachment does the chapter master belong to?

if it joins the strike squad, which detachment does it belong to?

The RAW answer is the same for both of the above questions.

if the special rule stated it was given to the unit then I might agree with you, but it clearly states "units from the detachment" which any model joined to any unit chosen from that detachment, is not a unit from that detachment unless it was purchased from that detachment.

what you consider irrelevant is actually quite relevant despite your insistence to ignore the RAW.

blaktoof wrote:
If you join an IC to a unit from another detachment it does not have permission to count as a unit from that detachment.

So what detachment is the GK (with a BA IC attached) unit in - the GK detachment? No detachment? Support your answer with rules.

And please, stop focusing on the detachment. I am not arguing that the BA IC is part of the GK detachment - stop pretending that I am. Stop spamming the same strawman arguments.
You're literally arguing against something I haven't said and never will say. That's not just rude, it's against the rules of proper debate and this forum.

The units are always part of the detachments they are purchased from. They cannot change detachments, and cannot be part of more than one detachment.

in the example of :

CAD-
HQ- Chapter master with whatever
Troops- Scouts
Troops- Scouts

NSF-
HQ-Librarian
Troop-Strike Squad

if you join the chapter master to the strike squad they are a unit, but they are from separate detachments and never from the same detachment, and never from both detachments. The chapter master has the command benefits from his detachment, and the strike squad have the command benefits from their detachment. They do not gain the command benefits from detachments they are not units from.

as per

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.

Unless the special rule states that it extends to the whole unit by any, or one model having it, the special rule does not affect the IC if the unit has it, and does not affect the unit if the IC has it. In the case of rites of teleporation it does not specify it extends to the unit if any model or one model has it.

just for fun here is the rule for stubborn:

When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead.

notice how permission is granted because it calls out "when a unit contains at least one model with this special rule." notice how in the section for ICs and special rules it requires this call out for the special rule to confer from IC to unit, and or unit to IC.



The special rule in question, 'rites of teleportation' is given to "units in the detachment' in the example army list above the units in that detachment from the start of the game, to the end of the game are only the librarian, and the strike squad, regardless of who joins who.

not "units in the detachment and any model with them"

or "any unit which contains at least model or unit from this detachment"

which is what is required from the section on special rules as per the section on ICs and special rules which has been quoted at least three times in this thread.

You will not discuss it because it is RAW that invalidates your "claim" and discussing the relevant rules to a topic is not rude, nor against the forum rules that you think it is I find incredibly ridiculous.

Rigeld, i have a feeling this is going to make it a very big loop, but i think the argument being put forth here is that the Unit X from GK Codex has the Rites of teleportation rule before deployment.
IE before the BB IC can join his friends and therefore he does not have the rule (as model).
Then "the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character" kicks in, and the now "Unknown Detachment" Unit (or even GK detachment unit with SM model) has a model without the rule, therefore denying the rule?

blaktoof wrote:
which is what is required from the section on special rules as per the section on ICs and special rules which has been quoted at least three times in this thread.

It is? I know for a fact that the IC rule doesn't say that at all.

You will not discuss it because it is RAW that invalidates your "claim" and discussing the relevant rules to a topic is not rude, nor against the forum rules that you think it is I find incredibly ridiculous.

Sigh. No. You keep arguing against and demanding proof that models can cross detachments.
I've.
Never.
Said.
That.

Is that clear enough for you to drop that argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Rigeld, i have a feeling this is going to make it a very big loop, but i think the argument being put forth here is that the Unit X from GK Codex has the Rites of teleportation rule before deployment.
IE before the BB IC can join his friends and therefore he does not have the rule (as model).
Then "the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character" kicks in, and the now "Unknown Detachment" Unit (or even GK detachment unit with SM model) has a model without the rule, therefore denying the rule?

a) It can't be an "unknown detachment" unit - it has to be a member of a detachment, or attaching an IC to a cross detachment unit would make your list unbound.
b) It's not a unit special rule any more than Objective Secured is a unit special rule.

So those of you arguing that the IC can't benefit also don't allow an IC to benefit from ObjSec if it's the only model in 3"? Same argument applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


Let's say we have a.SM IC, who is our warlord.from a CAD. He joins a GK unit that has the special rule "rites of teleportation".

We claim "he's part of this unit for all rules purposes".

Nevermind that we just broke at least 2 RAW, the one on IC s and special rules, and the one on detachments....

Quote them. Before posting anything else, quote what rules you just broke.

Still hasn't been addressed. Any likelihood of that? I doubt it, but I'll ask again.

I suggest you actually purchase a rulebook and read it.

blaktoof wrote:
I suggest you actually purchase a rulebook and read it.

Your statement is trolling unless you can actually provide a post where I haven't used rules to support my stance.

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.

blaktoof wrote:
which is what is required from the section on special rules as per the section on ICs and special rules which has been quoted at least three times in this thread.

It is? I know for a fact that the IC rule doesn't say that at all.

I guess your facts are wrong.

also you have not actually cited any rules supporting your statements, simply saying "yes I did" does not make something true.

rigeld2 wrote:

a) It can't be an "unknown detachment" unit - it has to be a member of a detachment, or attaching an IC to a cross detachment unit would make your list unbound.
b) It's not a unit special rule any more than Objective Secured is a unit special rule.

So those of you arguing that the IC can't benefit also don't allow an IC to benefit from ObjSec if it's the only model in 3"? Same argument applies.

a) Of course, which is why i put GK detachment in brackets, but saying that the unit in question is a GK Detachment unit is just strange to me.

b) "A unit with this special rule controls objectives" and "any unit in this Detachment" is worded exactly the same so i would have to agree there:

Denying Rites of Teleportation to the unit because of the attached IC would deny ObSec in the exact same way...

blaktoof wrote:

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.

blaktoof wrote:
which is what is required from the section on special rules as per the section on ICs and special rules which has been quoted at least three times in this thread.

It is? I know for a fact that the IC rule doesn't say that at all.

I guess your facts are wrong.

also you have not actually cited any rules supporting your statements, simply saying "yes I did" does not make something true.

My facts are not wrong. The IC rule does not say "units in the detachment and any model with them" or "any unit which contains at least model or unit from this detachment" are required.

The IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. IC rules.
The Command Benefit gives a bonus to all units in the detachment. Rites of Teleportation.
The GK unit is a member of the detachment. Fact.
The BA IC is a member of the GK unit for all rules purposes. Fact, based on IC rules.

You're asserting that the BA IC is not a member of the unit for a rules purpose.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


Let's say we have a.SM IC, who is our warlord.from a CAD. He joins a GK unit that has the special rule "rites of teleportation".

We claim "he's part of this unit for all rules purposes".

Nevermind that we just broke at least 2 RAW, the one on IC s and special rules, and the one on detachments....

Quote them. Before posting anything else, quote what rules you just broke.

Still hasn't been addressed. Any likelihood of that? I doubt it, but I'll ask again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
a) Of course, which is why i put GK detachment in brackets, but saying that the unit in question is a GK Detachment unit is just strange to me.

Why? Because there's a member of the unit for all rules purposes in the unit?

b) "A unit with this special rule controls objectives" and "any unit in this Detachment" is worded exactly the same so i would have to agree there:

Denying Rites of Teleportation to the unit because of the attached IC would deny ObSec in the exact same way...

At least you're consistently incorrect :p

rigeld2 wrote:

b) "A unit with this special rule controls objectives" and "any unit in this Detachment" is worded exactly the same so i would have to agree there:

Denying Rites of Teleportation to the unit because of the attached IC would deny ObSec in the exact same way...

At least you're consistently incorrect :p

Well... loops me back to thinking a SM IC in a GK Unit would benefit from Rites of Teleportation. Still trying to agree with Blaktoof though....