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.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
But more to the point, please explain to me how you are counting the character as a part of the NSF unit (and thus, as part of the NSF detachment for purposes of resolving Rites of Teleportation) without counting him as part of that unit for all other rules purposes (including the restrictions against multiple detachment membership), as stipulated by the Independent Character special rule?

IC from Detachment X
Unit from NSF Detachment

This is chosen when list building. This is now done and set in stone. Nothing can change these, as there are no rules to do so. We agree on that, yes?

So far, so good.

Rorschach9 wrote:
IC Joining a Unit

IC from Detachment X joins Unit from NSF Detachment in Deep Strike Reserve.
The IC is now a member of the unit for all rules purposes. No rules are changing detachments, so detachments of individuals in the unit at this point is irrelevant.
The Unit (which is indisputably still a Unit from the NSF detachment) is affected by Rites of Teleportation (as per the rule).
The IC is a member of that unit, and as such is affected by the same rule.
There are no restrictions in Rites of Teleportation that deny the unit from using it if any member of another detachment joined it. It is, and remains, a Unit from the NSF detachment thus complying with the special rules requirements.

The Character is part of the NSF unit, but that does not mean it is part of the NSF detachment . It is a member of a unit. That unit has a rule that affects it and that rule has no model based restrictions or qualifiers within it.

So here's where we part ways. I'm going to expand upon and rephrase your example to be more clear:

Start with a Ultramarines Chapter Master in Terminator armor ("the IC") from Primary CAD who is the Warlord, and a Terminator Squad ("the Squad") from Nemesis Strike Force. Both units choose to begin the game in Deep Strike Reserve.
The IC is the Warlord and is gains his rolled Warlord Trait, as well as the Combat Doctrines special rule granted to him via Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines).
The Squad is a unit from the Nemesis Strike Force detachment, and gains the Rites of Teleportation special rule, which is granted to all models from that detachment.
The Squad is a valid target for the Rites of Teleportation special rule, because it meets the requirements of being in Deep Strike Reserve, and being an NSF member unit.
The IC (on his own) is not a valid target, because while he is in Deep Strike Reserve, he is not an NSF member unit.
The IC attempts to joins the Squad and become a member for all rules purposes.
The IC is still a member of his Ultramarines CAD. He still has his Warlord trait, he still has Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), and he still has Combat Doctrines.
Following the rules for IC, he also counts as a member of the Squad for all purposes. The Squad is a member of the NSF, and thus has permission to execute the Rites of Teleportation rule.
The IC counts as a member of both his CAD and the NSF simultaneously. The rules tell us that this is not permissible, as multiple detachment membership is prohibited.
*** Game breaks at this point. Either you ignore the rule above, or you must separate the IC from the Squad. ***
The Squad may now deploy using the Rites of Teleportation special rule, because it meets the requirements of being in Deep Strike Reserve, and being an NSF member unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Creeperman wrote:

You seem to be arguing now that the IC somehow now ISN'T a member of the joined squad for all purposes, or is a member for some purposes and not other more inconvenient ones. That's not what's written under the Independent Character rule.

No, I have not once changed my argument. The IC is a member of the Unit for all rules purposes. What rules purpose am I trying to argue he is not following?
The UNIT, which he is a member of, Is still a Unit from the NSF detachment.
As such, the Unit (as a whole) is subjected to Rites of Teleportation.

The rules purpose in question is being a member of the Nemesis Strike Force. If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.

Creeperman wrote:
If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.

Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.

rigeld2 wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.

Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.

No, but the rule does require the unit itself be a member of the NSF detachment. Is detachment membership a rule? Is the IC a part of the unit for all rules purposes?

Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote:Rites of Teleportation: Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one. These units will arrive from Deep Strike Reserve on turn one on the roll of 3+. 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 Reserve.

Oh my god this is tedious.

If people are really going to take 'for all rules purposes' to heart, then the IC does change detachment and can thus benefit from the NSF rule. Any other consequences we then have been playing wrong (chapter tactics or what have you).

If you accept that he doesn't change detachment, he can still join the unit and become a member of that unit, and the unit (which hasn't changed detachment) with him as a member can now deep strike.

Regardless of how many characters from how many different detachments join the unit, no matter whether you think that the character does or does not change detachment, the unit is always a NSF detachment unit and can deep strike.

Creeperman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Creeperman wrote:
If you are counting the whole unit as a member, you are also counting the attached character as a member, or else you would have no permission to invoke the rule.

Incorrect. You're inserting a requirement into the actual rule that doesn't exist - no part of the rule requires that all members of the unit are a member of the NSF detachment, as you're asserting.

No, but the rule does require the unit itself be a member of the NSF detachment. Is detachment membership a rule? Is the IC a part of the unit for all rules purposes?

Nemesis Strike Force, Codex: Grey Knights wrote:Rites of Teleportation: Instead of making Reserve Rolls from the start of your turn two, you can make Reserve Rolls for any unit in this Detachment that is placed in Deep Strike Reserve from the start of your turn one. These units will arrive from Deep Strike Reserve on turn one on the roll of 3+. 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 Reserve.

Irrelevant question. Are you saying that the unit is no longer part of the NSF detachment?

rigeld2 wrote:
Irrelevant question. Are you saying that the unit is no longer part of the NSF detachment?

No, that is not what I said. My question is very relevant to what I did say.

Since that post wasn't addressed to me, I replied to what was.

The unit is a member of the NSF detachment. Agreed?
This doesn't change even if we attach an IC. Agreed?

Rigeld2,
Why bother any more?

When someone posts that an Independent Character can not Join a Battle Brother, even after being shown that there is a specific Rule that says the exact opposite, there is no point in continuing. It has also been shown many times that the dreaded "Independent Character Count As clause" that I despise would prevent a conflict from a Rule as Written perspective, even if it creates stupid outcomes elsewhere such as the entire Psychic Phase. It has also been highlighted even more times that these are Unit specific Rules, which do not bother to deal with individual Models within the Unit. Even the Rule about belonging to one Detachment at a time is fixated on Units so, technically, the Independent Character could belong to two if the Joining did somehow put the Model into a state of belonging to both.

If someone can state that more then three different Rule-Supported arguments are all irrelevant and stick to their flawed concept then even I will simply have to give up.
And you know how stubborn I can be when I see a possible fault in someone's argument....

The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.

The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.

Jinx -

The dreaded "Independent Character Counts-As Clause" is the cause of this inconsistency, not the solution. And splitting hairs about GW's use of "model" versus "unit" in the same breath as discussing the abortion that is the Psychic Phase rules is somewhere between ironic and disingenuous. I already stated that I find the outcome of RAW to be both silly and stupid, and would not play it that way myself, but this forum is for discussion of how those silly and stupid rules are written, in all their inconsistent glory.

If you want to discuss opinions, feel free to start a discussion or a poll about HYWPI if you wish.

Creeperman wrote:
The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.

The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.

Jinx -

The dreaded "Independent Character Counts-As Clause" is the cause of this inconsistency, not the solution. And splitting hairs about GW's use of "model" versus "unit" in the same breath as discussing the abortion that is the Psychic Phase rules is somewhere between ironic and disingenuous. I already stated that I find the outcome of RAW to be both silly and stupid, and would not play it that way myself, but this forum is for discussion of how those silly and stupid rules are written, in all their inconsistent glory.

If you want to discuss opinions, feel free to start a discussion or a poll about HYWPI if you wish.

Except for the rules for Battle Brothers and ICs joining other units, which make it quite clear that an IC from one detachment can join another unit from a different detachment. Also, the rules for combined units in Reserves only rolling once to enter play. That's three different sets of rules confirming that a IC from one detachment may legally join a unit from a different detachment, and be treated as a member of the unit for deployment from Reserves. With a conspicuous lack of any restrictions to counter these permissions, a non-NSF IC with Deep Strike that joins a Deep Striking NSF unit can by RAW roll for reserves on turn 1 per Rites of Teleportation.

SJ

Creeperman wrote:
The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.

The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.
.

Except for the rule allowing it, and the proof given that there is no issue of course

Your argument is refuted, RAW you can DS the attached IC using the NSF RoT rule. Done.

Creeperman wrote:
The example GK Terminator squad is a member of the NSF detachment, agreed.
Attaching an IC does not change the squad's detachment membership, also agreed.

The only hang-up is that it is not legal to attach an out-of-detachment IC to the squad, due to the multiple detachment rule.

You mean despite the rule that explicitly allows it of course.
Which means that your assertion isn't actually the rules.
Thanks for your opinion though - even if it is demonstrably incorrect.

Question. Does the rule say "models cannot belong to multiple detachments" or does it say "units cannot belong to multiple detachments"?

If models, than Creeperman has a point - either the IC is part of two detachments simultaneously, or an IC can never join a BB unit, despite being given permission.

If unit, then when an IC joins, the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X".

 Happyjew wrote:
Question. Does the rule say "models cannot belong to multiple detachments" or does it say "units cannot belong to multiple detachments"?

If models, than Creeperman has a point - either the IC is part of two detachments simultaneously, or an IC can never join a BB unit, despite being given permission.

If unit, then when an IC joins, the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X".

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

Which is why there is no point, it is as you say: "the IC unit temporarily disappears. Sure the unit is made up of models from multiple detachments, but the unit would still be from Detachment "X"."

As above.

I do think creeperman is confused between unit and model, here. The NSF rule is ONLY coincerned with units. Multiple detachments is ONLY concerned with units.

Yes, the general rule for detachment benefits states models receive the rule - however it doesnt matter if one model in the unit doesnt have the rule, as long as one does, and the unit as a whole is NSF, then the uinit as a whole can use the rule.

It is incredibly cut and dry this.

So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?

OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?

Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.

Creeperman wrote:
So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?

OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?

Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.

An UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines) does not get any benefit from "Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range" when he joins a non-Ultramarines Unit, no.

He does not get the benefit whether he has joined Tau, Eldar or a Tactical squad from a Black Templars Detachment.

Creeperman wrote:
So the counter argument now is that the IC's "unit" disappears when he joins another squad? Do I have that right?

Wait - you didn't actually understand that? Do we need to go back to that argument?

Yes, the IC's unit ceases to exist when he joins another unit.

OK, then go back to my example above. You have an UItramarines CM with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines). He joins an NSF squad, thus he's no longer a Ultramarines unit. What happens when he calls his Assault Doctrine (from Combat Doctrines)?

Combat Doctrines, Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Assault Doctrine: Units in this detachment can re-roll their charge range. Models in the detachment’s Assault Squads, Bike Squads and Attack Bike Squads instead have the Fleet special rule.

The CM doesn't benefit. What's your point?

The Rule interaction is a lot more complicated then 'The Independent Character's original Unit vanishes for a bit,' but that is just the observable effect these Rules have.

Due to the "Independent Character Counts-As Clause," every Rule must treat the Independent Character as part of another Unit. Without far more specific instructions grating permission to ignore this Clause in X, Y or Z situations, there is simply no way for a Rule to every interact with the original Unit. This leads people to conclude that it is 'gone,' for if there is no way for the Game to interact with the Unit in question how can it exist from a Rule as Written perspective?

Curiously, even the Rule which defines Units would technically be caught by this clause... leaving the original unit consisting of 0 Models from a Rule perspective, so maybe it is good we can't interact with it at all.

JinxDragon wrote:
The Rule interaction is a lot more complicated then 'The Independent Character's original Unit vanishes for a bit,' but that is just the observable effect these Rules have.

Due to the "Independent Character Counts-As Clause," every Rule must treat the Independent Character as part of another Unit. Without far more specific instructions grating permission to ignore this Clause in X, Y or Z situations, there is simply no way for a Rule to every interact with the original Unit. This leads people to conclude that it is 'gone,' for if there is no way for the Game to interact with the Unit in question how can it exist from a Rule as Written perspective?

Curiously, even the Rule which defines Units would technically be caught by this clause... leaving the original unit consisting of 0 Models from a Rule perspective, so maybe it is good we can't interact with it at all.

I agree with ambiguity is as much as i'll say. This argument is a bit of a pitfall i do not wish in on. Nem describes my thoughts quite well on the matter...

There is a lot of places where this clause causes problems, yes, but this is far from one of them.
I have stated that no Rule should ever have a open-ended exception clause, there needs to be boundaries defined so X counts but Y does not, which is why I hate this clause but it still is a Written Rule.

 Happyjew wrote:

simple question.

1 IC, in a CAD faction Space marines

joins a unit of strike squad in NSF faction grey knights.

is the unit, comprised of models from different detachments

or is it a unit solely of models from the NSF detachment with the faction greyknights?

It is a NSF unit composed of models from multiple detachments.

I see the merit in both sides of this issue. I now have to agree that as the unit was bought in detachment NSF, it still is part of that even if joined by others, thus all models in it would benefit from the Rites. I'm not sure if that was the intention, though.

Don't have any books with me, but are not SM chapter tactics more restrictive, the same way e.g. Battle Focus is?

The NSF unit is still part of that detachment, but the unit on the table is not from the NSF unit when every model in it is not from the NSF unit.

it is a Unit with Models from the NSF detachment , and models from another detachment.

the issue is the rites of teleportations states the unit has to be from the detachment.

the unit is not from the detachment if a single model in the unit is not from the detachment.

if it stated a model from a unit in this detachment
or
any models from a unit in this detachment
or
some models from a unit in this detachment

it would be as certain incorrect people in this thread are stating and you could attach a model not from the detachment, and the unit would be able to benefit from the rule.

the issue is the special rule is required by the RAW to specifically state it extends to any model in the unit if at least one model has it as per the wording of stubborn or shrouded.

Otherwise it is a special rule that requires all the models in the unit to be from the detachment, which it is when it states "units from the detachment"

units are made up of models, so all the models must be from the NSF detachment for that rule to effect the unit.

the IC is part of the unit, but it is not part of the detachment. there is nothing requiring it to extend that to the IC, and further there is nothing stating it does which is what would be RAW required as there is specific wording that when you create your army, before deployment no unit can belong to more than one detachment. You now need permission for a unit to count as being in another detachment, or count as being from another detachment than its own, or as stated above for the special rule to specifically state that it extends to all models in the unit if 1 has it as per the normal RAW required interaction of ICs with special rules wherein the IC does not gain the special rules of a unit it joins, regardless of counting as a member of the unit, and vice versa.

blaktoof wrote:
The NSF unit is still part of that detachment, but the unit on the table is not from the NSF unit when every model in it is not from the NSF unit.

Provide rules support for this sentence. This is the absolute minimum required to prove your argument.

the unit is not from the detachment if a single model in the unit is not from the detachment.

Same assertion, same onus on you to actually prove your point using rules instead of assertions.
You've literally avoided citing this every time it's been asked. Please actually provide rules support for your assertion.

Edited by AgeOfEgos you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

go ahead please.

As I have already pointed you to the RAW above, which states what the rule says, states what the rules for ICs joining units with special rules states, and states what the detachment rules states, and you have completely failed to provide a single rules quote to support your utterly false made up HYWPI claim that you are pruporting is true.

its a permissive game, show the permission in the rulebook in plain RAW that you can state a unit is a unit from this detachment, when models in it are not from that detachment.

blaktoof wrote:
the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?

Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).

And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?

Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).

And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.

so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.

Understood.

No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.

No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.

you do realize there is a whole section on how joining units works with battle brothers and all?

IC from CAD with faction space marines, is allowed to join a unit of Strike Squad from NSF detachment, they do not lose their identity when they join the unit and follow certain rules.

Are you able to show

that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

and therefore have permission for the unit that contains models from more than one detachment to be a unit in that singular detachment?

Circular arguments are circular.

As has been cited in numerous previous posts:

ICs can legally join Battle Brother units per the IC rules and the Battle Brother rules. In addition, ICs count as the a member of the unit they join for all other rules purposes, unless a specific restriction is otherwise noted.

Combine units arrive together.

Units never lose their detachment status, nor can any unit change detachments.

Per the above paraphrased rules which have been repeatedly cited on previous pages, a SM IC with Deep Strike that joins a NSF unit in Deep Strike Reserves will arrive on a single die roll per the combined unit rules, and the unit can roll for deployment on turn 1 per the NSF rules because every model in the unit counts as a member of that unit per the IC rules. No restrictions exist that prevent the NSF unit from using Rites, nor are there any restrictions that prevent the IC from being included in the Rites.

The burden of proof is on the Nay Sayers, to demonstrate why the IC would prevent the NSF unit from legally using Rites.

SJ

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?

Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).

And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.

so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.

Goal shifting, not required by the NSF rule which only asks if the unit is from the NSF, which it demonstrably is. Point rebutted, do not repeat it further
"normal member of the unit for ALL RULES PURPOSES" is a rule you really struggle with.

blaktoof wrote:No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.

That wasnt asked. Stick to the topic, rather than creating strawmen, again. Logical fallacies really undermine any credibility.

blaktoof wrote:No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.

Answer the ACTUAL question, which is that the IC unit disappears when joined. THis is a truth, so you must answer this question in the affirmative. Failure to do so shows your confusion between model and unit persists, and reduces your ability to argue this point.

blaktoof wrote:
Are you able to show

that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

Yes, the IC rules. The unit is entirely composed of normal members of that unit. As proven by the IC rules. Why do you insist on breaking this rule? Page and graph, with an exact cite, to prove your case

NOte, you have NEVER provided this rule, despite being asked 20 times now. You are so far from being within the tenets I am shocked you still post.

Your argument still fails, as apparently you cannot tell the difference between a unit and amodel.

Provide the rule allowing you to treat it not as an NSF unit. Page and graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the sad truth of your deluded continued posting is that you have to prove that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

You agree that the IC unit ceases to exist, correct?
You agree that the unit was purchased as part of the NSF detachment, right?

Cite the rule that removes the unit from the NSF detachment when a model joins it.
Not a single rule you've "cited" proves that (not that you've actually cited things).

And I'm not deluded posting - I'm not deceiving or fooling anyone. I've simply stated facts - facts that you've refused to address.
Your argument requires a rule that causes the NSF unit to lose its detachment status when a model joins it. You've so far been unable to cite a rule, instead choosing to insult and deride other posters.

so you are unable to show that a unit that contains an IC from detachment X and models from a NSF detachment counts the model from detachment x as a member of the NSF detachment and the NSF faction.

Goal shifting, not required by the NSF rule which only asks if the unit is from the NSF, which it demonstrably is. Point rebutted, do not repeat it further
"normal member of the unit for ALL RULES PURPOSES" is a rule you really struggle with.

blaktoof wrote:No the unit was not purchased as part of the NSF detachment, because a model in the unit is not from that detachment.

That wasnt asked. Stick to the topic, rather than creating strawmen, again. Logical fallacies really undermine any credibility.

blaktoof wrote:No the IC does not cease to exist when it joins the unit, it is still from its own detachment with a faction that does not fall into the restriction of what is allowed in the NSF detachment.

Answer the ACTUAL question, which is that the IC unit disappears when joined. THis is a truth, so you must answer this question in the affirmative. Failure to do so shows your confusion between model and unit persists, and reduces your ability to argue this point.

blaktoof wrote:
Are you able to show

that a unit can be from just one detachment when it has models from another detachment, as that is what you claim when you state "the unit is a NSF detachment unit" and it has model(s) in it that are not.

Yes, the IC rules. The unit is entirely composed of normal members of that unit. As proven by the IC rules. Why do you insist on breaking this rule? Page and graph, with an exact cite, to prove your case

NOte, you have NEVER provided this rule, despite being asked 20 times now. You are so far from being within the tenets I am shocked you still post.

Your argument still fails, as apparently you cannot tell the difference between a unit and amodel.

Provide the rule allowing you to treat it not as an NSF unit. Page and graph.

counts as a member of that unit does not mean it counts as a member of that detachment, you still have failed to show the one thing that is required for it to be "a unit in the nsf detachment" when not all models in the unit are from that detachment.

so yes under your false cherry picking the RAW argument fails.