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.

blaktoof wrote:
No.

You do not understand.

3/4ths of the special rules for this formation are not special rules that benefit units. they are special rules that benefit the squads. Squad =/= unit. Using the name of the unit does not = a unit on the table top. Notice how the first special rule "shock deployment" specifies the rule affects the unit.

Can I get rules quote that using the name of a unit it is not referencing the unit? Or to put it your way, "Squad =/= Unit"?

Remember, in this case, not even the models are called Assault Marines or Assault Squad, just Marines, Marine Sgt, etc.

blaktoof wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
those models have permission to benefit from the rule not because it is a rule that affects the UNIT, but because it is a rule that affects the models from those squads.

When the rule says: "the Devastator Squads (...) have the Relentless special rule" you believe this refers to the models?
Not the "Devastator Squads", the Unit that goes by that name?

So, you think that the models in the "Devastator Squads" have the Relentless Special Rule on Turn 1, when they are still off the board?

I think the RaW disagrees.

Did the Devastator Squads (the Unit) have Relentless on Turn 1 when the game starts?

The answer to that question is "No":

The Devastator Squad does not have relentless.

It obtains that Rule later in the game: "the Turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve"
When it gets Relentless, any joined IC also gain the Relentless Rule.

The exact same thing happens for the Assault Squads. They do not have permission to charge on Turn 1, or Turn 2 or Turn 3.
They obtain permission to Charge on Turn 4 when "they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve".
When the Squad obtains permission, who get the permission? All models in the Unit. This may happen to include an IC.

The models from the skyhammer annihilation force have the 4 special rules for that formation before deployment.

Some of the rules do not have an affect until certain actions are met, but the special rule that gives that affect (ie the 4 special rules they have for being organized into this formation) they have prior to any game turn, and deployment.

So the models in the dev squad have the special rule "first the fire then the blade" prior to turn 1, but it does not grant relentless until turn 1.

The special rule that gives them these abilities as called out by the RAW are given prior to deployment, not when the event that allows them to do something triggers. ie the models have first the fire then the blade, which is the special rule- which grants a special rule at a specific time for a specific time in this case, prior to turn 1. They do not gain their formation special rule 'first the fire then the blade' after deployment at some event happening, that is not how formation special rules work.

so the RAW does not disagree, your above statements are just not correct.

and again can you find anywhere in the latter 3 rules that states it affects the units? The first rule does, so yes an attached IC would benefit, as it is a rule that affects units.

Of course they have "first the fire then the blade" prior to turn 1.

But you miss the point.

Please answer the simple question:
They Deep Strike in Turn 4, when do they obtain the Relentless Special Rule?

 BlackTalos wrote:

KillerWabbit wrote:
The IC does not have the rule that gets the unit Relentless, therefore the IC does not get Relentless.

Missed that part. And i agree, the IC does not have the Rule than grants Relentless. The Devastator Squad does though. And what does their Rule do?

Grant Relentless to the Unit. To ALL the models in that Unit. It's unfortunate, but the Rules is granted to the Unit. Nothing says "The models of this formation only, get Relentless" Therefore the entire "Devastator Squad" gets Relentless.

The same applies to Assault Squads and charging.

please quote in the rule where it states it affects the unit?

an example from shock deployment, a rule from the same formation "all units in the sky hammer annihilation force may start the game in reserve, instead of using the normal reserve and deployment rules for these units you can.."

Why do you think the rules as written for one thing grant rules for an unit, but do not grant rules for an unit in the other three rules for the formation? Are all rules granted to an unit unless they specify otherwise? IS there blanket permission for anything to affect an unit without stating it affects the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
No.

You do not understand.

3/4ths of the special rules for this formation are not special rules that benefit units. they are special rules that benefit the squads. Squad =/= unit. Using the name of the unit does not = a unit on the table top. Notice how the first special rule "shock deployment" specifies the rule affects the unit.

Can I get rules quote that using the name of a unit it is not referencing the unit? Or to put it your way, "Squad =/= Unit"?

Remember, in this case, not even the models are called Assault Marines or Assault Squad, just Marines, Marine Sgt, etc.

its a permissive rule set, to state squad = unit or unit name on a datasheet= unit on table + anything joined, you have to show it. Not the otherway around. Its the same reason no one has to show rules permission for a player to have 1000 more points in their army because you did not wear red pants.

again

the unit name "assault squad" is the name of a datasheet that is purchased for a detachment/formation(or not if unbound) that contains models.

those models make up a unit on the table.

I can join a Skitarii IC, an INQ IC, and a Sob IC to that unit.

Those ICs are not models purchased from the datasheet unit name "assault squad".

the unit name of the datasheet and a unit on the table are two different things.

 Wilson wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
For me, It boils down to the wording " the assault squad may assault..." Not "the assault squad and any characters that have joined said squad may assault..."

People will spend their lives arguing on threads like this. Facts and opinons remain the same.
The rules are slightly unclear
Space marine players want to justify it.
Other players want to deny it.

This isnt going to change until theres an faq. so reciting the rules back and forth to one another isnt going to change much. Just play it how you want too with your mates. Lets face it, youre not gonna play 99% of the dudes on here!

You're completely missing the point of this entire section of the forum.

It's pointless in this case to say that it's pointless to discuss rules in here. This is a rules discussion forum. What exactly are you expecting to come of this statement? It's equally pointless to say "just play it how you want to!" Yeah, we all know we can do that - that's NOT the point of the discussion. What you said here was completely not constructive and entirely beside the point.

And, to refute your point, the rule doesn't need to specify "and any characters that are attached" - the core rules already cover this instance, where they declare that ICs that join a unit are now for all intents and purposes a part of that unit.

Not sure how my opinion is any less constructive than your response but okay Rambles

Just trying to save you from more wasted time and effort in the future.

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
those models have permission to benefit from the rule not because it is a rule that affects the UNIT, but because it is a rule that affects the models from those squads.

When the rule says: "the Devastator Squads (...) have the Relentless special rule" you believe this refers to the models?
Not the "Devastator Squads", the Unit that goes by that name?

So, you think that the models in the "Devastator Squads" have the Relentless Special Rule on Turn 1, when they are still off the board?

I think the RaW disagrees.

Did the Devastator Squads (the Unit) have Relentless on Turn 1 when the game starts?

The answer to that question is "No":

The Devastator Squad does not have relentless.

It obtains that Rule later in the game: "the Turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve"
When it gets Relentless, any joined IC also gain the Relentless Rule.

The exact same thing happens for the Assault Squads. They do not have permission to charge on Turn 1, or Turn 2 or Turn 3.
They obtain permission to Charge on Turn 4 when "they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve".
When the Squad obtains permission, who get the permission? All models in the Unit. This may happen to include an IC.

The models from the skyhammer annihilation force have the 4 special rules for that formation before deployment.

Some of the rules do not have an affect until certain actions are met, but the special rule that gives that affect (ie the 4 special rules they have for being organized into this formation) they have prior to any game turn, and deployment.

So the models in the dev squad have the special rule "first the fire then the blade" prior to turn 1, but it does not grant relentless until turn 1.

The special rule that gives them these abilities as called out by the RAW are given prior to deployment, not when the event that allows them to do something triggers. ie the models have first the fire then the blade, which is the special rule- which grants a special rule at a specific time for a specific time in this case, prior to turn 1. They do not gain their formation special rule 'first the fire then the blade' after deployment at some event happening, that is not how formation special rules work.

so the RAW does not disagree, your above statements are just not correct.

and again can you find anywhere in the latter 3 rules that states it affects the units? The first rule does, so yes an attached IC would benefit, as it is a rule that affects units.

Of course they have "first the fire then the blade" prior to turn 1.

But you miss the point.

Please answer the simple question:
They Deep Strike in Turn 4, when do they obtain the Relentless Special Rule?

The devastator squads from the sky hammer annihilation force have relentless on the turn they arrive from deepstrike. They gain it from the special rule 'first the fire then the blade' which they had prior to deployment, but any attached IC did not have as it was not part of the unit to gain the formation bonus prior to deployment. You miss the point, where is the permission for units? Does it say devestator squad units? I can't seem to see this unit word in the rule anywhere that gives it permission to extend to the unit that you+some others keep claiming is there. Is an IC from "captain" datasheet, a model purchased from the "devastator squad" datasheet? Does the rule in question specify it affects the unit? The RAW answer to both is no.

Does an IC count as a part of the unit for all rules purposes when it joins?

blaktoof wrote:

The devastator squads from the sky hammer annihilation force have relentless on the turn they arrive from deepstrike. You miss the point, where is the permission for units? Does it say devestator squad units? I can't seem to see this unit word in the rule anywhere that gives it permission to extend to the unit that you+some others keep claiming is there. Is an IC from "captain" datasheet, a model purchased from the "devastator squad" datasheet? Does the rule in question specify it affects the unit? The RAW answer to both is no.

Good, we have agree that Devastator Squads get relentless on the Turn they arrive.

Now, lets look at the RaW:
"the Devastator Squads (...) have the Relentless special rule"

Please tell me what the term "Devastator Squads" in the RaW defines:
A) Devastator Squad = The Unit called "Devastator Squad"
B) Devastator Squad = the 4 marines called "Devastator Marines"

Or, same question: What is a "Devastator Squad" and how is this defined in the Codex / Rulebook?

blaktoof wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
No.

You do not understand.

3/4ths of the special rules for this formation are not special rules that benefit units. they are special rules that benefit the squads. Squad =/= unit. Using the name of the unit does not = a unit on the table top. Notice how the first special rule "shock deployment" specifies the rule affects the unit.

Can I get rules quote that using the name of a unit it is not referencing the unit? Or to put it your way, "Squad =/= Unit"?

Remember, in this case, not even the models are called Assault Marines or Assault Squad, just Marines, Marine Sgt, etc.

its a permissive rule set, to state squad = unit or unit name on a datasheet= unit on table + anything joined, you have to show it. Not the otherway around. Its the same reason no one has to show rules permission for a player to have 1000 more points in their army because you did not wear red pants.

So, I'm asking where it states that referencing a unit name, as defined by the data sheet rules, is not referencing a unit.

You don't have permission to wave that off, or at least provided any rules permission to do so, so why are you?

blaktoof wrote:
its a permissive rule set, to state squad = unit or unit name on a datasheet= unit on table + anything joined, you have to show it. Not the otherway around. Its the same reason no one has to show rules permission for a player to have 1000 more points in their army because you did not wear red pants.

again

the unit name "assault squad" is the name of a datasheet that is purchased for a detachment/formation(or not if unbound) that contains models.

those models make up a unit on the table.

I can join a Skitarii IC, an INQ IC, and a Sob IC to that unit.

Those ICs are not models purchased from the datasheet unit name "assault squad".

the unit name of the datasheet and a unit on the table are two different things.

Ah, i see, we do indeed have an issue of definition of the Term: "Devastator Squad"

The term "Devastator Squad" can only be a reference to "A Unit of Devastator Marines". Because that is what the Formation refers to. Formation are composed of Units.

So when the Formation says:
- 1-3 Devastator Squads
This must mean Units, because Formations are composed of Units.

Devastator Squad = the Unit of that name.

so until you can post where it states it affects the unit, which is required in a permissive rules set...

or you can show..

that the IC counts as a model from the "unit name" on the data sheet..(which has a lot of RAW problems as has been previously pointed out in this thread)..

or you can show a RAW passage that a unit is the same as the unit name on a datasheet (good luck!)...

I can just keep copy pasting the RAW passages I have posted on this, to the HYWPI stances where you make a jump in logic for any of the three above statements without any Rules as written to support it.

so here

again

the unit name "assault squad" is the name of a datasheet that is purchased for a detachment/formation(or not if unbound) that contains models.

those models make up a unit on the table.

I can join a Skitarii IC, an INQ IC, and a Sob IC to that unit.

Those ICs are not models purchased from the datasheet unit name "assault squad".

the unit name of the datasheet and a unit on the table are two different things.

or better yet. Just answer why in rites of teleportation, and shock deployment do they specify UNIT, but in the other three rules you claim are 'unit rules' they never say the word 'unit' except when specifying the enemy unit that is the target of said special rules?

just answer that. Why do some sets of rules which benefits UNITS have rules as written that state they benefit units, and these rules which you claim benefit units, have no rules as written that state they benefit units?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
its a permissive rule set, to state squad = unit or unit name on a datasheet= unit on table + anything joined, you have to show it. Not the otherway around. Its the same reason no one has to show rules permission for a player to have 1000 more points in their army because you did not wear red pants.

again

the unit name "assault squad" is the name of a datasheet that is purchased for a detachment/formation(or not if unbound) that contains models.

those models make up a unit on the table.

I can join a Skitarii IC, an INQ IC, and a Sob IC to that unit.

Those ICs are not models purchased from the datasheet unit name "assault squad".

the unit name of the datasheet and a unit on the table are two different things.

Ah, i see, we do indeed have an issue of definition of the Term: "Devastator Squad"

The term "Devastator Squad" can only be a reference to "A Unit of Devastator Marines". Because that is what the Formation refers to. Formation are composed of Units.

So when the Formation says:
- 1-3 Devastator Squads
This must mean Units, because Formations are composed of Units.

Devastator Squad = the Unit of that name.

I see so formations are composed of units. So if it says squads, which are referencing the "unit name" from the formation therefore unit name = unit.[any quote on that?] So an IC joined to an unit is part of that units datasheet. Do you have any rules support for that?

That has interesting implications with the rules on models not belonging to more than one formation/detachment since it now counts as being bought from a datasheet other than its own like the rest of the models from that datasheets unit name (the unit name = units theory here) other than the IC datasheet, which is probably in two separate formations/detachments. Does the IC lose its formation benefits when it joins the unit because its now counting as being a model from that units datasheet to make unit name on the datasheet = unit on the table top? Or does it get to break the rules about being in more than one formation/detachment?

blaktoof wrote:
or better yet. Just answer why in rites of teleportation, and shock deployment do they specify UNIT, but in the other three rules you claim are 'unit rules' they never say the word 'unit' except when specifying the enemy unit that is the target of said special rules?

just answer that. Why do some sets of rules which benefits UNITS have rules as written that state they benefit units, and these rules which you claim benefit units, have no rules as written that state they benefit units?

Because Games Workshop. Each new Codex has the same rules written differently. GW tries to shorten Rules, write them "better", but it does not always work.

blaktoof wrote:
I see so formations are composed of units. So if it says squads, which are referencing the "unit name" from the formation therefore unit name = unit.[any quote on that?] So an IC joined to an unit is part of that units datasheet. Do you have any rules support for that?

That has interesting implications with the rules on models not belonging to more than one formation/detachment since it now counts as being bought from a datasheet other than its own like the rest of the models from that datasheets unit name (the unit name = units theory here) other than the IC datasheet, which is probably in two separate formations/detachments. Does the IC lose its formation benefits when it joins the unit because its now counting as being a model from that units datasheet to make unit name on the datasheet = unit on the table top? Or does it get to break the rules about being in more than one formation/detachment?

I never stated that the IC "joined the Datasheet". That does not mean anything.

Please just define, in the RaW, what "Devastator Squad" means.

We are during Turn 4 of a game. We no longer have Datasheets. We only have Units, composed of models, on the gaming table. Words like "Datasheets" or "Force Organisation" or "Points cost" do not exist and are not called upon during the Assault Phase of Turn 4.
If a rule, at that point in the game, says:
"All Devastator Squads on the board can re-roll their Snap Shots" or any Rule we could invent....

Define "Devastator Squad" in that Rule.

"or you can show a RAW passage that a unit is the same as the unit name on a datasheet (good luck!)... "

From the Army List Entry Data Sheet Description pate.

"3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

This is a rule. It names the unit something. In this case, it names it "Assault Squad".

The IC joins the unit and is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

"Why do some sets of rules which benefits UNITS have rules as written that state they benefit units, and these rules which you claim benefit units, have no rules as written that state they benefit units? "

Because it's how English works.

In one rule they are referring to all the units and an effect.

The other rule, they are saying these units get this, and other units get something else. Just because they are referencing specific units does not all of a sudden make it that they are not referencing units.

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
or better yet. Just answer why in rites of teleportation, and shock deployment do they specify UNIT, but in the other three rules you claim are 'unit rules' they never say the word 'unit' except when specifying the enemy unit that is the target of said special rules?

just answer that. Why do some sets of rules which benefits UNITS have rules as written that state they benefit units, and these rules which you claim benefit units, have no rules as written that state they benefit units?

Because Games Workshop. Each new Codex has the same rules written differently. GW tries to shorten Rules, write them "better", but it does not always work.

blaktoof wrote:
I see so formations are composed of units. So if it says squads, which are referencing the "unit name" from the formation therefore unit name = unit.[any quote on that?] So an IC joined to an unit is part of that units datasheet. Do you have any rules support for that?

That has interesting implications with the rules on models not belonging to more than one formation/detachment since it now counts as being bought from a datasheet other than its own like the rest of the models from that datasheets unit name (the unit name = units theory here) other than the IC datasheet, which is probably in two separate formations/detachments. Does the IC lose its formation benefits when it joins the unit because its now counting as being a model from that units datasheet to make unit name on the datasheet = unit on the table top? Or does it get to break the rules about being in more than one formation/detachment?

I never stated that the IC "joined the Datasheet". That does not mean anything.

Please just define, in the RaW, what "Devastator Squad" means.

We are during Turn 4 of a game. We no longer have Datasheets. We only have Units, composed of models, on the gaming table. Words like "Datasheets" or "Force Organisation" or "Points cost" do not exist and are not called upon during the Assault Phase of Turn 4.
If a rule, at that point in the game, says:
"All Devastator Squads on the board can re-roll their Snap Shots" or any Rule we could invent....

Define "Devastator Squad" in that Rule.

to the first question, thats not a valid answer. One of the rules cited 'shock deployment' uses the wording for units benefitting. It is one of the rules from this very formation. The other three rules do not have a single rule as written stating they affect the unit.

to the second, a devestator squad is the name of a datasheet, it is models purchased from that datasheet. Those models when deployed by themself are an unit on the table. IF an IC is joined to that unit, the IC is part of the unit. However the IC is not a model purchased from the devastator squad. If a rule states it affects the devestator unitl, or the unit with this special rule. The IC is a model in the unit and would benefit. IF the rule states it affects the squad, does it affect the unit? Nowehere is there a rule as written that states squad= unit, or the name of a datasheet = an unit on the table top. Units on the tabletop are made up of models. Sometimes those models belong all to the same datasheet which may be from a specific formation. Sometimes the unit may have models from different datasheets, which were purchased from different formations.

ie a Tech Dominus from admech, is purchased from data sheet unit name: tech dominus
a SoB IC is purchased from data sheet unit name: whatever
a Iron Priest is purchased from datasheet unit name: iron priest
a Sang Priest: is purchased from datasheet unit name: sanguinary priest
they are joined to assault squad purchased from data sheet unit name: assault squad

all the ICs are joined to the assault squad at deployment.
They are all in a single unit.
They are not all purchased from the datasheet unit name: assault squad, and they are not by default of being joined to the unit part of that unit name which belongs to that specific datasheet, which is tied to a specific formation/detachment in a non unbound list.

in the BRB there are rules that affect models, and units.
Now this is a rule that does not specify it affects unit (a table top entity made up of models on the board)
it does specify it affects squads, the unit name of a specific datasheet in a specific formation.

The ICs are part of the unit, but they are not part of the models bought from the assault squad datasheet when joined. Therefore they are not models from the assault squad, despite being in a unit with the assault squad.

So again, 1 out of the 4 rules specifies it affects the unit(s), so joined ICs are part of the unit and benefit. The other three do not state anywhere they affect the unit.

Edit

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

"or you can show a RAW passage that a unit is the same as the unit name on a datasheet (good luck!)... "

From the Army List Entry Data Sheet Description pate.

"3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

This is a rule. It names the unit something. In this case, it names it "Assault Squad".

The IC joins the unit and is considered a part of the unit for all rules purposes.

"Why do some sets of rules which benefits UNITS have rules as written that state they benefit units, and these rules which you claim benefit units, have no rules as written that state they benefit units? "

Because it's how English works.

In one rule they are referring to all the units and an effect.

The other rule, they are saying these units get this, and other units get something else. Just because they are referencing specific units does not all of a sudden make it that they are not referencing units.

So when you join a BA IC from a CAD to this unit, you think the BA IC is part of the models bought from the data sheet in a different formation, as unit name is the name for the models from the datasheet. You are not allowed to have models in more than one formation/detachment.

In one rule they are saying the units get this, in the other three they do not state the units get anything in the rules as written. That is not a true statement, and at best is RAI not rules as written. They do not reference specific units, because they never state unit, they reference the datasheet unit names models are bought from, meaning the models from those datasheets.

blaktoof wrote:
to the second, a devestator squad is the name of a datasheet, it is models purchased from that datasheet. Those models when deployed by themself are an unit on the table. IF an IC is joined to that unit, the IC is part of the unit. However the IC is not a model purchased from the devastator squad. If a rule states it affects the devestator unitl, or the unit with this special rule. The IC is a model in the unit and would benefit. IF the rule states it affects the squad, does it affect the unit?

The ICs are part of the unit, but they are not part of the models bought from the assault squad datasheet when joined. Therefore they are not models in the assault squad, despite being in a unit with the assault squad.

So again, 1 out of the 4 rules specifies it affects the unit(s), so joined ICs are part of the unit and benefit. The other three do not state anywhere they affect the unit.

There is 0 support in the Rules for Units inside Units.

An IC joined to a "Devastator Squad" is a "Devastator Squad". That is just the name of the Unit.

There are absolutely no rules about separating Units according to their Datasheets.
No Rules ever say "Models from Datasheet: Devastator Squad can re-roll To Hit".....

Datasheets are like an Army List or points cost: they exists when you create your army, not on Turn 4 of the Game.

In the middle of the game, the only define term in the BRB is "Units". When a Rule says it affect "Devastator Squads", it affects all Units named "Devastator Squad". It's quite simple.

Joining a unit and being under the effect from a rule while being in that unit, regardless of that benefit's source, does not change the detachment the original IC is drawn from or nor does it need to be a part of another unit's detachment to be under the effect of a rule that is affecting the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
they reference the datasheet unit names models are bought from, meaning the models from those datasheets.

This is simply impossible. Rules never refer to datasheets.

During the course of a game, Rules can only refer to:
- Units
- Models
- Terrain

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
to the second, a devestator squad is the name of a datasheet, it is models purchased from that datasheet. Those models when deployed by themself are an unit on the table. IF an IC is joined to that unit, the IC is part of the unit. However the IC is not a model purchased from the devastator squad. If a rule states it affects the devestator unitl, or the unit with this special rule. The IC is a model in the unit and would benefit. IF the rule states it affects the squad, does it affect the unit?

The ICs are part of the unit, but they are not part of the models bought from the assault squad datasheet when joined. Therefore they are not models in the assault squad, despite being in a unit with the assault squad.

So again, 1 out of the 4 rules specifies it affects the unit(s), so joined ICs are part of the unit and benefit. The other three do not state anywhere they affect the unit.

There is 0 support in the Rules for Units inside Units.

An IC joined to a "Devastator Squad" is a "Devastator Squad". That is just the name of the Unit.

There are absolutely no rules about separating Units according to their Datasheets.
No Rules ever say "Models from Datasheet: Devastator Squad can re-roll To Hit".....

Datasheets are like an Army List or points cost: they exists when you create your army, not on Turn 4 of the Game.

In the middle of the game, the only define term in the BRB is "Units". When a Rule says it affect "Devastator Squads", it affects all Units named "Devastator Squad". It's quite simple.

I agree there is 0 rules support for units inside unit.

Just as there is 0 Rules support that you can count as being from a datasheet of an unit you joined.

The basis for saying squad= unit is your+other opinion that unit name of a datasheet is the same as unit in the rules for a unit of models on the table top.

an IC joined to a devestator squad is a unit on the table top made up of models from the devestator squad datasheet, and models from any corresponding IC datasheets.

Claiming the datasheet ceases to exist is false, as it contains the rules and profiles for the models that are used throughout the game for various rules purposes. It also is not stated anywhere in the rules. The datasheet also has the battlefield role, IE HQ, Elites, FA, TROOP, HEAVY SUPPORT. These roles play a part in the game for victory conditions in certain missions, and are part of the datasheet and certainly exist through the game until the end.

not only is it false but it is a rather strange statement, as you are claiming 3/4ths of the rules affect units(when it never says they do) because it references the unit name on the datasheet. If the datasheet no longer exists, you could never use a rule that affects something like "assault squad" because there is no longer an assault squad if the datasheet no longer exists, because "Assault squad" is the name on the datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
they reference the datasheet unit names models are bought from, meaning the models from those datasheets.

This is simply impossible. Rules never refer to datasheets.

During the course of a game, Rules can only refer to:
- Units
- Models
- Terrain

Strange, formations have rules and refer to datasheets that you have to purchase with possible restrictions to be able to use the datasheet. When you look up the profile of an assault marine, you find it on the datasheet. I seem to find profile information useful for using various rules in the game.

can you give a RAW explanation why shock deployment for this formation references units, but the other three do not?

blaktoof wrote:


Strange, formations have rules and refer to datasheets ?

Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units

it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.

Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.

Formations do not usually include points values; just add up the points values of the individual units to find the points cost of the Formation.

the cost of the Formation is the total cost of the units plus any extra points the Formation specifies.

blaktoof wrote:
Claiming the datasheet ceases to exist is false

Never my claim. I said Rules do not refer to "Datasheets", or find a Rule like:
"On Turn 5, all models from Datasheet: Necron Destroyer gain It Will Not Die"

Rules only say "All models from Devastator Squads have ..."
or "All Devastator Squad Units have..."

Which one do you think is "the Devastator Squads (...) have the Relentless special rule"?

blaktoof wrote:


can you give a RAW explanation why shock deployment for this formation references units, but the other three do not?

Because it's how English works.

In one rule they are referring to all the units.

The other rule, they are saying these units get this, and other units get something else. Just because they are referencing specific units by name doesn't mean they are not referencing the unit.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


can you give a RAW explanation why shock deployment for this formation references units, but the other three do not?

Because it's how English works.

In one rule they are referring to all the units.

The other rule, they are saying these units get this, and other units get something else. Just because they are referencing specific units by name doesn't mean they are not referencing the unit.

I realize you keep telling me how English works, but I don't think that statement means what you think it means.

they are not saying in the other rules "these units get this, and the other units get something else" because they never state units. Special rules do not default affect a whole unit without saying "the units get to" just like is used in shock deployment, the first rule in this formation.

We can say there is a RAI, if you are of the opinion they intended to say units but instead did not for whatever reason we are not privy to, because they just decided to not use the same wording used by the english language they previously used for whatever reason and did not explain that with any rules. However as it is for three of the four rules there are no rules as written anywhere within those three rules that say the unit benefits from any of those three rules.

They stated the units by name.

Stating the units by name doesn't mean they aren't referring to units.

They are simply referring to a specific unit or set of units, identified by it's name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"Special rules do not default affect a whole unit"

No.

But the special rules are worded that they do affect the unit.

The unit they are affecting are specified by their name.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


Strange, formations have rules and refer to datasheets ?

Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units

it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.

Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.

Formations do not usually include points values; just add up the points values of the individual units to find the points cost of the Formation.

the cost of the Formation is the total cost of the units plus any extra points the Formation specifies.

you left out that command benefits are given to models from those units prior to deployment.

So yes we know formations are made up of units, the units get command benefits, they are given to models in the formation prior to deployment.

IC joins a unit after command benefits are given, IC does not have command benefit.

1 of the 4 command benefits states it benefits the units.

the other three state they benefit the squads. The squads are the units purchased for the formation prior to the game starting, and are given their benefits prior to the IC joining. The IC was not purchased as a model from those units(assault SQUAD, devastator SQUAD)

So its deployment, and the IC has joined an unit from this formation.

It is a model in the unit for the purposes of rules.

One of the rules some of the models have(not the IC) in this formation benefits the unit, is the IC in the unit? YES! he can benefit, yay! Shock deployment go!

Three of the rules some of the models have(not the IC) in this formation benefit SQUADS. Squads are those things you bought back before the game started, before deployment, before the IC was part of the unit. Do they state they benefit units? No. Is the IC from the squad that was purchased as a unit in the formation? Nope.

Command Benefits are a part of detachments that aren't Formations.

We're talking about Formations. Formations get Special Rules.

Rules about Command Benefits do not affect rules about Special Rules.

formations are detachments.

If you want to pretend otherwise, that is fine, and if you want to pretend there are rules for "formation special rules" that are different than other special rules given for detachments that is also fine.

It does not change that 3 of the special rules do not affect units, but affect the squads purchased for the formation, and the IC was not purchased from any of those squads.

Formations are a type of Detachment. A type of Detachment that has it's own rule set. There are rules for "Detachments" and there are rules for "Formations". The book explains these differences, and even gives the example that this is why one counts for Unbound and one doesn't.

Command Benefits and Special Rules are not interchangeable terms in any way.

I'm fairly sure there is a difference between command benefits and formation special rules. I'll go look it up.

What is more important is the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the quoted rule that defines assault squad as a unit, which and ic becomes a part of for all rules purposes

Every 7th ed codex i have checked has the same definition of the unit name on the dataslate page just before the unit entries

7 pages of back and forth getting to no where.

I like to play tourneys... Right now all I care is how TOs from ITC, ETC, Nova and etc going to rule it.