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.

Every model in the detachment has a special rule that allows the unit to do "X".

Since the special rule in question applies to the unit as a whole, and does not say something along the lines of "A unit composed entirely of models with this special rule..." I believe, while it might not be intended, RAW allows it.

so no one can show that an IC joining a unit becomes a unit from a different detachment, or a counts as a unit from a different detachment.

btw thanks for all of the people who are saying it is allowed not actually posting any rules quotes to support any of your HYWPI discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

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

deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.

Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.

How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.

you claim an IC joining a unit becomes a member of that detachment for all rules purposes because the unit is from that detachment.

despite the fact there is no RAW of this, and you and others have failed to ever quote any...

along with failing to comment on if a unit from one detachment now counts as being from another detachment the army is currently illegal based on FOC selections, as well as things such as if the attached IC is the warlord, which has to be from your primary detachment, and you put it into a NSF that is not your primary detachment, if the IC counts solely as from the other detachment when it is part of that unit because the unit is of detachment NSF your army now has a warlord outside of its primary detachment according to your invalid false made up non rules supported B.S. nonsense stance.

if You have 2 ICs join together, which is allowed under the IC rules, which unit would the unit now be from?

You claim it has to be from only one unit, and that units cannot have models from multiple detachments in them.

which detachment is a unit from that has

IC from USF
IC from CAD

blaktoof wrote:
so no one can show that an IC joining a unit becomes a unit from a different detachment, or a counts as a unit from a different detachment.

No, because nobody is claiming that. When an IC joins a unit it becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes. It does not, in any way, as has been stated many times in response to you, become "a unit from a different detachment".
An IC joining a unit has nothing to do with detachments.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

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

deals with organizing units before the game, not during the game.

Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.

otherwise the rule which allows you to join an IC to an IC would make your army illegal if anyone joined two+ ICs together under your incorrect rules interpretation.

How would it make the army illegal? Please, enlighten us all.

you claim an IC joining a unit becomes a member of that detachment for all rules purposes because the unit is from that detachment.

despite the fact there is no RAW of this, and you and others have failed to ever quote any...

Blaktoof - another rule less argument from you. Shock

Are you treating the IC as not a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes? Yes? Then your argument is proven false.

Do not post further claiming raw ,as you have been proven wrong as per the tenets, Mark your post as "HIWPI"

so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"

got it.

Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.

In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.

In summery, if a Detachment Benefit effects units rather than models, the IC would be effected. If the Benefit requires all models to be from the Detachment, the Benefit would not confer to the IC. Also, an argument can be made that Benefits from the IC that effects units would also effect the joined unit. Without an FAQ addressing this different, it is RAW that Benefits to units do confer if no specific restriction is noted due the the poor wording of the IC rules.

SJ

blaktoof wrote:
so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"

got it.

Nope, why would the IC still be a unit? He's part of a unit , that is part of the nsf detachment. Any reason you're asking for something irrelevant?

Why are you breaking rules? Can you provide permission to not treat the IC as a member of that unit for ALL rules purpose ( ooh look, detachment is a rules purpose...) or will you just ignore this, again.

Mark your posts HYWPI, as they fail to reflect any actual rules in the game

To anyone else reading this: you can safely ignore blaktoofs argument, as it contains no actual rules relevAnt to this query.

blaktoof wrote:
so no one has any RAW that a model counts as being a unit from another detachment then its own to fulfill the requirement for certain rules of "units in this detachment may"

No one posted rule to support that because no one is claiming that.

Straw man, meet brick wall.

to anyone reading this you can safely ignore most of the people claiming this is allowed as they are unable to support it with any rules that show an unit joined to another unit counts as being in that units detachment, since there is no actual rule stating this.

Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.

rule 1 guys

blaktoof wrote:
to anyone reading this you can safely ignore most of the people claiming this is allowed as they are unable to support it with any rules that show an unit joined to another unit counts as being in that units detachment, since there is no actual rule stating this.

No one has offered rules supporting that because no one is claiming it.

Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.

So the rules that you dismissed as only counting during list building suddenly apply now?

trolls meet wall.

Rule #1 of dakka. Have a nice day.

for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.

Thanks.

blaktoof wrote:
for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.

Thanks.

I have posted rules to support my stance in the past. I haven't this time as you continuously choose to not argue the point I'm making, but something that I've never stated instead.
As such, it's not worth actually attempting to discuss with you.

blaktoof wrote:
for someone that never follows the rules, ie actually discussing the central point of an arguement, posting rules, your comments are noted as HYWPI, please in the future note that you conceded this point by not being able to support your stance with any RAW, and it is HYWPI so as not to confuse forum readers.

Thanks.

Rules have been provided. You just choose to ignore them, creating strawman arguments and absurd claims in preference.

You cannot follow the tenets. There is no debate.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.

In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.

In summery, if a Detachment Benefit effects units rather than models, the IC would be effected. If the Benefit requires all models to be from the Detachment, the Benefit would not confer to the IC. Also, an argument can be made that Benefits from the IC that effects units would also effect the joined unit. Without an FAQ addressing this different, it is RAW that Benefits to units do confer if no specific restriction is noted due the the poor wording of the IC rules.

SJ

Err in the case of Not special rules and then in regards to your last paragraph then it could get pretty messy as it then seems dependant on what the Command Benefit does (Though it seems messy anyway using special rules). Ongoing unit effects are not shared by the different units - in the same way Special Rules are not - irrelevant of the fact if the effect was on 'Models in the unit' or 'Unit', in the way its all written there can be some debate to if in these areas GW writers actually acknoledge if there is a difference between given to models or units at all.

blaktoof wrote:

Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.

You keep banging that drum .. nobody is even remotely attempting to argue this incorrect assumption (outside of telling you that it's not what's being said; at all).

Let's be clear;

I have a Strike Squad from a Grey Knights NSF detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I have a Librarian from a Space Marines detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.

I attach the Librarian to the Strike Squad.
The Librarian now becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes , as the IC rules state (ergo, it is no longer its own unit).
The librarian is now a member of a unit that was chosen as a unit in an NSF Detachment and remains a unit in that detachment.
The Librarian does not "become a unit from the NSF detachment", nor does it lose any detachment status.
It is NO LONGER A UNIT of its own.
It remains a MODEL chosen from a Space Marines detachment, but is, for all rules purposes, a member of a UNIT from the NSF detachment (notice model =/= unit; this is important).

The GK rule states "units from the NSF detachment may" .. nowhere has the unit lost it's status as a unit from the NSF detachment, or that it is now a "unit from X+Y" detachments, or that it is a "unit from no detachment. In fact, there are no rules that tell us it ever does, or can. It remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen, with an IC attached (who remains a MODEL from its own detachment, but a member of a UNIT from another detachment .. no, this does not mean in any way that it is a member of two detachments).

Rorshach - probably best to leave this one. Every rules quote has been provided to blaktoof, and every time they come up with an entirely different argument to the one presented, and claim that is "our" argument. From memory in the prior thread Rigeld went to great pains to point this out to blaktoof, to no avail.

They are convinced we are saying the IC "unit" changes detachment, when of course that is not the argument

Again, to posters who may be confused - blaktoofs argument literally has no merit, it is not based in any current set of rules, and they cannot post any relevant rules to support their stance. Their constant cries of "troll" also violates rule 1 of this site.

Unusually for GW the "obvious" answer - that the IC can still DS with the unit, using their special rules - is also the one supported by the rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Claiming that a unit counts as being in that units detachment, then means if it is not in its own detachment, it has switched detachments which there is no RAW for. The unit is not allowed to be in more than one detachment by RAW, so claiming it is in the other units detachment, and its own is against the RAW. And there is no RAW showing that it counts as being in the other detachment even though it remains in its detachment.

You keep banging that drum .. nobody is even remotely attempting to argue this incorrect assumption (outside of telling you that it's not what's being said; at all).

Let's be clear;

I have a Strike Squad from a Grey Knights NSF detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.
I have a Librarian from a Space Marines detachment. It is determined to be from that detachment when I build my list and never changes detachments.

I attach the Librarian to the Strike Squad.
The Librarian now becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes , as the IC rules state (ergo, it is no longer its own unit).
The librarian is now a member of a unit that was chosen as a unit in an NSF Detachment and remains a unit in that detachment.
The Librarian does not "become a unit from the NSF detachment", nor does it lose any detachment status.
It is NO LONGER A UNIT of its own.
It remains a MODEL chosen from a Space Marines detachment, but is, for all rules purposes, a member of a UNIT from the NSF detachment (notice model =/= unit; this is important).

The GK rule states "units from the NSF detachment may" .. nowhere has the unit lost it's status as a unit from the NSF detachment, or that it is now a "unit from X+Y" detachments, or that it is a "unit from no detachment. In fact, there are no rules that tell us it ever does, or can. It remains a unit from the detachment it was chosen, with an IC attached (who remains a MODEL from its own detachment, but a member of a UNIT from another detachment .. no, this does not mean in any way that it is a member of two detachments).

Lets be clear, your continued trolling and mis representation of what the argument actually is and what is stated by others is tiring and against the forum rules.

The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment if a model in the unit is not from the NSF detachment.

Attaching an IC does not make the IC count as being from the NSF detachment, nor does it count as a unit from the NSF detachment.

Write out a force roster, assign benfits, deploy-> attaching IC to strike squad then point to your written out force roster to which models those detachments are from. Units are made from models, not all models are from that detachment, ergo and RAW that unit is not from the detachment.

you and no one else has posted RAW otherwise that an IC attached to a unit counts as a member of that detachment in this thread or another, and the continued misrepresentation of that that is pathetic.

Reported, again. I suggest you desist making personal attacks.

So which detachment is the NSF unit from? Are you treating the IC as NOT a normal member of the unit - unqualified - for a rules purpose, and thus breaking the rules?

You cannot supply a single valid counter argument to this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reported, again. I suggest you desist making personal attacks.

So which detachment is the NSF unit from? Are you treating the IC as NOT a normal member of the unit - unqualified - for a rules purpose, and thus breaking the rules?

You cannot supply a single valid counter argument to this.

I find it interesting how often you feel the need to misquote and misrepresent other posters, a trend not only in this thread.

Which detachment is the IC from when joined to the NSF unit?

Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.

I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.

The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.

blaktoof wrote:

The unit is not a unit from the NSF detachment if a model in the unit is not from the NSF detachment.

Then what detachment is it from?

Attaching an IC does not make the IC count as being from the NSF detachment, nor does it count as a unit from the NSF detachment.

Nobody has said it does. Ever. Not only that, the IC is no longer its own unit (funny, I feel this has been mentioned already) when it joins another unit.

Write out a force roster, assign benfits, deploy-> attaching IC to strike squad then point to your written out force roster to which models those detachments are from. Units are made from models, not all models are from that detachment, ergo and RAW that unit is not from the detachment.

Please, provide the rules that state the unit is not from the detachment. What rules are allowing you to remove it from the detachment and/or change its detachment?

you and no one else has posted RAW otherwise that an IC attached to a unit counts as a member of that detachment in this thread or another, and the continued misrepresentation of that that is pathetic.

Because we have not attempted to prove that an IC attached to a unit "counts as a member of that detachment". It doesn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.

I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.

The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.

I see you are not.able to answer the questio.

An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?

The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?

Ask something relevant then you may get an answer. I see you were unable to answer mine - or else refusing to, knowing it destroys your argument?

The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. THe rules purpose, in this case, is "is this a NSF detachment unit?". Yes is the only possible answer.

If you claim they are NOT a NSF detachment, what are they? Cite a rule allowing a unit to be in two detachments at once, and cite a rule allowing you to NOT treatr the IC as a normal member of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES

currently there is precisely one troll on this thread.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.

I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.

The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.

I see you are not.able to answer the questio.

An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?

The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?

Why does it matter what detachment a (currently) non-existent unit is from?

The rule in question refers to units from that detachment. The IC joined a unit from that detachment. The unit is still a unit from that detachment,

FIRST AND ONLY WARNING - RULE #1!

And calling other users 'trolls' is not acceptable.

IF you see a post that you think breaks the rules of this site, the ONLY appropriate 'response' is to report the post using the Moderator Alert button!

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where have I quoted you in that post above? Please state it. I didnt quote anyone - the clue is the lack of quotation marks.

I find it interesting that you cannot help but state "troll" every other time your lack-of-rules is called out.

The IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Yes or No.

I see you are not.able to answer the questio.

An IC from a CAD is joined to a squad from a NSF detachment. Which detachment is the.IC from?

The special rule.in question, which the IC does not have at anytime during the game, benefits units from the NSF detachment. Is the IC in the NSF detachment when joined to it. Units are made of models, if not all the.models are in the.same detachment in a unit is it a unit from only the NSF detachment?

Why does it matter what detachment a (currently) non-existent unit is from?

The rule in question refers to units from that detachment. The IC joined a unit from that detachment. The unit is still a unit from that detachment,

There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.

a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.

without specific permission to ignore that the IC cannot join the detachment, nor count as a member of the detachment the IC cannot count as a member of the NSF detachment even when joined to a unit from the detachment- as there is no RAW permission that this can happen.

its the same reason you cannot attack Ghaz to an ork warband and say he is the warboss from the formation and give him a 2++ every turn.

its the same reason you can never claim a unit is from another detachment or switch detachments, regardless if they are joined to a unit from another detachment.

no unit can be part of more than 1 detachment, but that rule only exists for army creation so after you have assigned units to detachments you can have a unit with models that are from more than 1 detachment[with none of the models themselves being from more than 1 detachment], but as there is no RAW permission for the units to switch or gain detachments at this point you also satisify the RAW that prior to deployment you cannot have a unit belong to more than 1 detachment, the result is the IC is not a member of the detachment even when joined. There is 0 RAW evidence to support the opposite and many of the posters in this thread have failed to post a single quote from the RAW, and if they do it is always incomplete or has nothing to do with the actual topic. I.E. drop pod rules, I.E. "heres the first part of the rules, then I omit the rest because I would be wrong"

Blaktoof,
I do not understand why you would want to link your argument to Deep Strike.

If it wasn't for the existence of a specific Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule, designed to force each Model to have the Rule before it functions, then it would be possible to join a non-Deep Striking Model and still be able to Deep Strike the entire Unit. The existence of a Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule highlights the requirement for similar Rules to also have similar Restrictions. The lack of similar Restrictions, within a Special Rule which targets the Unit as a whole, would lead me to the conclusion that the Special Rule in question can be applied to the Unit regardless of which Models in the Unit possess the Special Rule. That alone makes bringing up Deep Strike an act of undermining your own argument....

JinxDragon wrote:
Blaktoof,
I do not understand why you would want to link your argument to Deep Strike.

If it wasn't for the existence of a specific Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule, designed to force each Model to have the Rule before it functions, then it would be possible to join a non-Deep Striking Model and still be able to Deep Strike the entire Unit. The existence of a Restriction within the Deep Strike Special Rule highlights the requirement for similar Rules to also have similar Restrictions. The lack of similar Restrictions, within a Special Rule which targets the Unit as a whole, would lead me to the conclusion that the Special Rule in question can be applied to the Unit regardless of which Models in the Unit possess the Special Rule. That alone makes bringing up Deep Strike an act of undermining your own argument....

the deep strike comparison is because the IC from outside of the detachment absolutely never has the special rule in question, as it is awarded to the unit prior to deployment. The soonest the IC can join the unit is deployment, at which time there is no RAW permission from then on out to the end of the game to give detachment special rules/benefits.

this detachment special rule specifically calls out that all the units must be from the detachment for the special rule.

units being made of models, and in this case not all models in the unit have the special rule nor are all the models in the unit from the said detachment.

I bring up deep striking, because essentially people are either misrepresenting when detachments grant special rules/benefits and or claiming the attached unit somehow counts as being in the same detachment as the unit to be a 'a unit from the nsf detachment'

as we have rules that tell us no unit can be assigned to more than 1 detachment when making our force roster, this does not mean after the game a model from one detachment with the IC rule that is allowed to join a unit would not be able to join a unit from another detachment with factions being okay with such a joining.

However, the joined unit is not a unit from a singular detachment, it has models from more than one detachment in it.

No one has been able to cite RAW permission anywhere that the joined IC from any detachment other than the NSF counts as a unit from the NSF for the 'rites of teleportation rules'

yes the model counts as a member of the unit, but it does not count as a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit that was selected from it, or even a model from a unit selected from the NSF detachment. There is no RAW support for such a thing. In this case such an assertation by certain people is even more erroneous because the NSF has the restriction of 'grey knights' faction not just 'space marine' faction, which obviously the joined IC does not have, and does not count as having, making it in no way or shape a member of the NSF detachment, or a unit from the NSF detachment, as the NSF units are solely the units[formed of models] chosen from that FOC with the grey knights faction[required restriction]

there is no rule against a unit after army creation containing models from multiple detachments, so it is RAW that the models keep their faction and detachment identity, and do not gain or change factions.

as such a unit that has 10 strike squad members from a NSF and 1 attached IC from a CAD is a unit that has 11 models, 10 of which have faction GK and detachent NSF listed on their force roster with benefits/special rules from their own wargear, unit entry, and detachment entry which are granted all prior to the game starting ie prior to deployment, and a singular IC from a different detachment, with its own detachment rules/benefits/restrictions and rules from wargear unit entry. Neither have RAW permission to default confer special rules to each other, as has been quoted by myself earlier in this read regarding special rules and ICs which can be found in the BRB. The unit cannot claim to be "from the NSF detachment" or a unit form the nsf detachment, because not all models in the unit are actually from that detachment.

to be honest I play mostly Dark Eldar and Orks and would love for this to be the case, because then I could have deep striking ICs with wracks/veboms turn 1, or Ghaz having endless 2++ and all kinds of ork fun things, but it is not the RAW and it is not legal just as the above scenario is not.

blaktoof wrote:
There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.

Did anybody claim this? You keep bringing this up but nobody is claiming that the IC switches Detachment. So why bring it up?

a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.

And the rule in question doesn't care if models in the unit are from another detachment. All it carees about is if the unit itself is from the detachment.

without specific permission to ignore that the IC cannot join the detachment, nor count as a member of the detachment the IC cannot count as a member of the NSF detachment even when joined to a unit from the detachment- as there is no RAW permission that this can happen.

Nobody is trying to join the IC to the detachment. People are trying to use a special rule that affects the unit as a whole that the IC just happens to be part of.

its the same reason you cannot attack Ghaz to an ork warband and say he is the warboss from the formation and give him a 2++ every turn.

Well seeing as how the 2++ requires Ghaz to call a Waaagh! and be your Warlord, and the formation requires the formation's warboss to be the warlord to call a waaagh every turn, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

its the same reason you can never claim a unit is from another detachment or switch detachments, regardless if they are joined to a unit from another detachment.

Please read this very carefully.

No one is claiming that an IC changes detachments when it joins a unit.

no unit can be part of more than 1 detachment, but that rule only exists for army creation so after you have assigned units to detachments you can have a unit with models that are from more than 1 detachment[with none of the models themselves being from more than 1 detachment], but as there is no RAW permission for the units to switch or gain detachments at this point you also satisify the RAW that prior to deployment you cannot have a unit belong to more than 1 detachment, the result is the IC is not a member of the detachment even when joined. There is 0 RAW evidence to support the opposite and many of the posters in this thread have failed to post a single quote from the RAW, and if they do it is always incomplete or has nothing to do with the actual topic. I.E. drop pod rules, I.E. "heres the first part of the rules, then I omit the rest because I would be wrong"

Correct. No unit can part of more than 1 detachment. If Ghaz joins the unit of Nobz from the Ork Warband Formation, it is still a unit of Nobz. From the Ork Warband formation.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Per RAW, a model never be from more than one detachment. However, also per RAW, ICs ignore that restriction per their "for all rules purposes" clause that isn't already contradicted by the Special Rules not conferring clause.

In the case of Rites, it applies to NSF units, of which a non-NSF Battle Brother IC can join and be counted as a member of that unit "for all rules purposes" with the exceptions listed. Are Detachment Benefits "Special Rules"? Most people don't think so, because the RAW does not state that they are.

I disagree with that last sentence.

Command Benefits, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote: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.

The book explicitly calls them special rules, so I'm not sure what argument could be mounted against them being special rules by RAW. Thus, following the rules for ICs, it seems apparent that the attached character does not himself possess the Rites of Teleportation special rule, and does not gain it by virtue of joining the GK unit. Equally undoubtedly, the Rites of Teleportation special rule targets the entire unit as a whole, not individual models, with the restriction that all of them be part of the Nemesis Strike Formation.

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
There is no RAW permission to switch detachments, and the IC cannot be assigned to both detachments before the game.

Did anybody claim this? You keep bringing this up but nobody is claiming that the IC switches Detachment. So why bring it up?

blaktoof wrote:
a Unit is made of models, not all models in the unit have the special rule and additionally not all models in the unit are of the "unit from a nsf detachment" even when an IC is joined. When you have a unit with mixed special rules they do not all automatically confer it to each other, as per the RAW. Ex I join a an IC without DS to a unit of terminators, claiming the unit has deepstrike does not give it to the IC.

And the rule in question doesn't care if models in the unit are from another detachment. All it carees about is if the unit itself is from the detachment.

Which is a distinction without a difference. Only units from an NSF can use Rites of Teleportation. If you somehow gave a Codex: Space Marine unit of Terminators the GK version of this rule, it would not allow them to DS on the first turn, nor both run and shoot on the turn they arrived. The argument for allowing an IC to do just that when attached to a NSF unit hinges on him becoming part of that NSF unit "for all rules purposes," which by implication includes switching to the NSF detachment, or else you have a unit that's unable to use Rites of Teleportation.

Unfortunately, the argument really hinges on whether or not the IC is considered part of the NSF detachment. So let me pose the following hypothetical: You have a Primary Detachment (say Codex: Space Marines) with a Chapter Master in Terminator Armour as your Warlord, plus the NSF as allied Battle Brothers. You choose to place your Warlord in Deep Strike Reserve with a Deep Striking GK unit. If you believe the CM becomes part of the NSF detachment (per the IC instructions of "for all rules purposes"), how do you reconcile your choice of Primary Detachment?

The Primary Detachment, Choosing Your Army, WH40k 7E wrote:Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment.

Since it's been established that he has to be one or the other, since a unit may not be a member of more than one detachment, if your CM is claiming to be part of a different detachment "for all rules purposes," can he still be your Warlord?

If detachment membership is determined on a per-model basis, I'm not sure there's a case for allowing an attached IC to use Rites of Teleportation. If detachment membership is instead determined by the joined unit, I'm not sure there's a case for ever allowing a character to attach across detachment lines in a Battle-Forged army.