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.

So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

Zimko wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cite permission to gain command benefits for models outside of a detachment.

and also that is not what i said.

I said if a unit has models from detachment x,y,z.

the models from detachment x have rules from x

the models from detachment y have rules form y

the models from detachment z have rules from z.

this is RAW straight from the section that has been quoted about 8 times now on command benefits.

there is no raw that when an IC joins a unit it takes on that units formation.

so if you have a unit of 10 models from x, that unit has 10 models with the special rule x. so the entire unit has special rule x.

if you join model y to unit x, model y has command benefits from detachment y, but does not have command benefits from detachment x as it is not a member of detachment x and command benefits are granted only to the models in them.

now you have a unit of 11 models. 1 has special rule y, the other 10 have special rule x. you can look at the section on special rules and ICs and figure out if special rule x or y transfer to the other models in the unit.

if you can find some RAW that joining a model to other models makes it a member of their detachment, or joining a unit to another unit makes it a member of their detachment as this has to be specifically stated, because there is a general rule:

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

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence

It's not.
Sure - it's a special rule. It's not a unit special rule, which is what the quote on page 166 addresses, so the quote from 166 doesn't apply.

Please. try again.

A unit can have IC's from any number of detachment, but it's constituent parts each still remain part of their original detachment. The constituent unit's models would all gain all rules that confer, but retain the ones that don't on each specific one.

I.e. IC from a detachment that gains zealot and twin linked weapons joins a combined arms troop unit. The troops would now have objective secured and zealot, the IC would gain nothing.

there is no such thing as a unit special rule.....

models have special rules.

models make up units.

if all the models in a unit have a special rule then it can be said the unit has a special rule, however there is still no such thing as a unit special rule.

some special rules require a unit to have at least one model with the special rule, some give the special rule just to the model that has it.

if an IC joins a unit of models that all have a special rule there is a specific RAW on how their rules interact, its been quoted about 8 times.

can you find somewhere RAW and cite that there is a such thing as a "unit special rule" and show us how this is different than a special rule?

the logic that is being port forth by many people is as ridiculous as saying "look I have an IC with EW, I joined him to another IC without it, now they both have EW."

Zimko wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

It's in response to me, but I'm not sure what he's saying here. Here's the wording of the rule again, first line for Command Benefits under the Detachments section:

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

That sentence is not and/or, it's either/or. It is not inherently both, as it either provides the unit/models with a special rule (ie, Objective Secured), or provides the units/models with a benefit for being a part of the detachment (ie, Rites of Teleportation). It CAN be both, if the benefit is that you get a special rule, but that's no a given. People are trying to conflate the two as essentially being both sides of the same coin.

Amiricle wrote:A unit can have IC's from any number of detachment, but it's constituent parts each still remain part of their original detachment. The constituent unit's models would all gain all rules that confer, but retain the ones that don't on each specific one.

I.e. IC from a detachment that gains zealot and twin linked weapons joins a combined arms troop unit. The troops would now have objective secured and zealot, the IC would gain nothing.

He'd have Objective Secured since he's a member of a Troops unit...

blaktoof wrote:there is no such thing as a unit special rule.....

Actual rules disagree.

if all the models in a unit have a special rule then it can be said the unit has a special rule.

Citation required.

if an IC joins a unit of models that all have a special rule there is a specific RAW on how their rules interact, its been quoted about 8 times.

Yes - I've quoted it. It specifically says "the unit's special rules". Do you disagree with that?

can you find somewhere RAW and cite that there is a such thing as a "unit special rule" and show us how this is different than a special rule?

Well, a unit special rule is a special rule the unit has. A detachment special rule is a special rule that a detachment has.

the logic that is being port forth by many people is as ridiculous as saying "look I have an IC with EW, I joined him to another IC without it, now they both have EW.

No, it's not the same at all. I could explain if you actually cared, but I feel like you're trolling me so I won't.

confoo22 wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
So if the crux of the whole issue is that one little sentence, let's examine it closer then. "Command benefits are special rules or benefits" since it's and/or let's break it to singular to have "Command benefits are special rules" and "Command benefits are benefits"
First one is easy and we have lots of rules and procedures on how to and implement that. Second one is the problem. What's a benefit then? Is it a game term? It's not defined as one anywhere so to use it as a game term we must speculate on what it may be, leading to the confusing mess we have. If it's not a game term then, I guess we use it as just a word meaning something beneficial making for a superfluous description. (Like saying a good thing is good, or chocolate tastes like chocolate). Neither usage tells us that we can use command benefits as anything other than special rules.

Who is this in response to?

It's in response to me, but I'm not sure what he's saying here. Here's the wording of the rule again, first line for Command Benefits under the Detachments section:

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

That sentence is not and/or, it's either/or. It is not inherently both, as it either provides the unit/models with a special rule (ie, Objective Secured), or provides the units/models with a benefit for being a part of the detachment (ie, Rites of Teleportation). It CAN be both, if the benefit is that you get a special rule, but that's no a given. People are trying to conflate the two as essentially being both sides of the same coin.

while I agree it does not say "and/or" it also surely does not say "either/or"

so im not sure if your interpertation of RAI is really relavent, especially given the only examples for command benefits are specifically called out as special rules regardless if their own text says they are or not.

do you have any actual examples of command benefits which are stated to not be special rules, or somewhere where it states benefits are not special rules? even one?

It seems as if this argument has gone on more than long enough and has come down to trivial aspects of grammar.

Best to put it to bed now, I feel.