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.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

nah you are TFG for disallowing someone to play something that is perfectly legal.


the unit has permission, by name, to do the 1st turn charge.

the IC is part of the unit, and the special rule explicitly states otherwise that it affects the whole unit.



you just dont want to play against it, it has nothing to do with it being against RAW

 easysauce wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

nah you are TFG for disallowing someone to play something that is perfectly legal.


the unit has permission, by name, to do the 1st turn charge.

the IC is part of the unit, and the special rule explicitly states otherwise that it affects the whole unit.



you just dont want to play against it, it has nothing to do with it being against RAW

That sucks.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My skepticism runs high with this statement but should it be true I would advice first actually reading the rules as the marine player would be correct in his assertion that he is able to do so and secondly this is a thread discussion in which we are trying to best understand the rules of the game system, of which your addition to the thread with that comment had no bearing and wasn't constructive.

Thimn wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My skepticism runs high with this statement but should it be true I would advice first actually reading the rules as the marine player would be correct in his assertion that he is able to do so and secondly this is a thread discussion in which we are trying to best understand the rules of the game system, of which your addition to the thread with that comment had no bearing and wasn't constructive.

Yeaaaah...no.

Formation Special Rules do not apply to models taken from outside of the formation, unless the Special Rule is specifically listed to allow it.

Since there exists no named Special Rule which grants the ability which is so heavily coveted outside of the Formation Special Rule; it cannot be granted to ICs which join the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
actually there are no models on the table that are devestator marines, or assault marines. The unit name devestator squad allows you to buy models which are "space marines" and "Sgt" or "vet sgt"

Exactly my point.

blaktoof wrote:
all of the models purchased for that unit entry which fills a specific part of a formation detachment, are bought as "devestator squads" or "Assault squads" so the sgt is not left out.

Thank you for reiterating my point. Now, what are those units called?

blaktoof wrote:
the IC is joined to the unit, but the IC is not from the assault squad, and there is no rule anywhere that allows it.

Who said anything about "from", just that he is "part of" the assault squad.

So, then show me where it says this only affects models "from the assault squad"?

blaktoof wrote:
three of the rules allow things for the squads from the formation, not the assault squad unit, or any permutation of the words that results in it being a unit rule by using the word unit somewhere in the rule. One of the rules does state it affects units.

So, one cannot call a unit by the name on its datasheet and consider it a unit? Where is the rule to cause this difference to standard English?

blaktoof wrote:
Through rules I can join the IC unit to the assault squad unit. Forming 1 unit from the two separate units. The new unit counts as one unit, and the IC counts as a member of the unit. They models may have different special rules from the various units they were originally bought from/their wargear/their formation. They do not by default gain each others rules, and there are rules which state how they gain each others rules- in the case of rules that affect an unit it has to say "the unit gets to do this" or "if a model has this rule then the unit may" or "if at least one model in the unit has this rule the unit may" etc.

Correct. Some have had trouble with this. Your trouble starts before that, though.

blaktoof wrote:
Now the unit is made up of models from the "assault squad" datasheet, and a model from the "captain datasheet" The assault squad was not from the captain datasheet, and the captain is not from the assault squad datasheet. We know this because no model is allowed to belong to more than one formation/detachment so other than the obvious that they are two distinct and separate datasheets they are also from two separate formations/detachments. Some models have been given EXPLICIT permission to be from more than one detachment/formation through rules which are stated in things like the new marine strike force, craftworld warhosts, and the decurion formation. Neither the CAD IC or assault squad models from the SAF have this wording. So other than the fact they are from different datasheets, we also know they are not from the same datasheet because they are from different formations/detachments and are not allowed to be from a different one than the one they were chosen from in the army.

Now this is the part that is tripping you up, a little. While two models in a unit may be from different detachments, this does not invalidate their rules.

Another question, the Jump Captain joins the Assault Squad, what is the name of the unit? Is it still Assault Squad, or something else?

The IC rules tell us that the name of the unit will stay "Assault Squad".

Keep in mind that the datasheet only provides the list of rules, wargear, and options of the unit, and is NOT the unit itself.

blaktoof wrote:
three of the rules for the SAF detachment do not reference the unit can benefit, they reference the squads. The squads are the name of datasheets, which have models chosen from them.

Then it doesn't work, since datasheets are not deployed, just units. So, then when a unit is referenced by name, why do you consider it referencing a datasheet and not a unit?

blaktoof wrote:
Yes the models are units on their own, and when you join 2 or more of these units (an IC, which is an unit on its own, and an assault squad which is an unit on its own) they do form 1 single unit, which the IC counts as being part of. However the IC is not from the assault squad. and the rule does not state the assault squad UNITS so it is not a rule that benefits UNITS. It is a rule that benefits the assault squad, that all the models in the assault squad unit benefit prior to the IC joining does not make it an unit rule, it has to say it affects the unit. Once you joined a model to the unit that is not from the assault squad you have an unit that has models from different datasheets/formations and not all of the models have the same rules. In this case one of the rules not all the models have is 'first the fire then the blade' and we are only told it affects the assault squad[which are models chosen from a datasheet which can be space marines, sgt, or vet sgt] not that it affects the unit.

So what is it referencing when it is referencing "assault squad" if it is not addressing a unit? A datasheet? Than it is referencing a non-entity that cannot perform the actions which the rule directs.

Assault Squad is the name of the unit. When rules direct actions on the table, they refer to units. When rules refer to Assault Squads, they are referring to units named Assault Squads.

blaktoof wrote:
tldr- assault squad is an unit, an IC is an unit. Joining them makes 1 unit from 2 units, the IC counts as being in the unit. The IC is not from the assault squad however, as it is a separate datasheet in a separate formation. The IC is from its datasheet in a separate formation/detachment. The rule you are trying to benefit from does not state it benefits units in the rules.

TLDR: Assault squad is an unit, an IC is an unit. Joining them makes 1 unit from 2 units, the IC counts as being part of the unit (Assault Squad). The rule affects the assault squad which is a unit in the army. The IC is part of the Assault Squad. The IC participates as a member of the Assault Squad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeaaaah...no.

Formation Special Rules do not apply to models taken from outside of the formation, unless the Special Rule is specifically listed to allow it.

Since there exists no named Special Rule which grants the ability which is so heavily coveted outside of the Formation Special Rule; it cannot be granted to ICs which join the unit.

And that, gentlemen, is presenting a case on HIWPI, and not on RAW.

except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.


you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation, but this has been proven to

A: not always be true

and
B: specifically in this case, not true, as the special rules in the formation specifically state otherwise that they do in fact apply to the whole unit, not just models from the formation






literally, peopel like kaluwen's idea of "raw" is just so far off... by their definition,

if you cast enfeeble on a unit, and that unit contains an IC, the IC is not affected, cause hey, enfeeble only says it affects the whole unit, and special rules dont transfer onto ICs by default, even if the rule specifically states it affects the whole unit

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

 easysauce wrote:
except if you actually read the special rule kanluwen it says it applies to the whole unit.

the IC is part of the unit.

And an IC can join a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, doesn't make him a Psyker now does it?

you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation, but this has been proven to

A: not always be true

and
B: specifically in this case, not true, as the special rules in the formation specifically state otherwise that they do in fact apply to the whole unit, not just models from the formation

So then if I put a Techpriest Dominus in a unit of Ruststalkers, as part of the "Sicarian Killclade Formation"--he gets to, once per game, Run during the Shooting Phase and then Charge?

Because let's face facts here, this is wishful thinking on your part. Special Rules have to state that they grant to the unit if a single model has them to include ICs. It's right there in black and white on page 166.

you have made a RAI statement that a rule that affects the unit name of a datasheet affects an unit on the tabletop.

The unit name of a datasheet has models which are bought from it, the unit on the table top can include models that are not from that datasheet unit name.

The rules never state the unit benefits, they state the assault squad.

the IC is never part of the assault squad, the IC can be part of the assault squads unit on the table top.

the rule does not grant anything at all to the assault squads unit, it grants something to the assault squad.

Why do you think they are referencing the datasheet the models are bought from instead of saying the unit? They obviously know the difference since the RAW for shock deployment states the unit, but there are no rules as written for the other three that state the unit.

your statements are purely a jump that the datasheet unit name is the same as the unit on the table top. Which is not true and can be proven by joining an IC unit from a different unit name datasheet [captain] to an assault squad unit from a different unit name datasheet[assault squad]

you now have an unit made of models, they benefit from unit rules.

Some of the models are space marines, some are sgt[or vet sgt] one is a captain model.

one of the models is from the datasheet with unit name:captain, some are from the datasheet with unit name: assault squad. They are all in one unit but they are not from the same place.

The IC is not part of the models from the assault squad datasheet, ever.

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

easysauce wrote:
literally, peopel like kaluwen's idea of "raw" is just so far off... by their definition,

Spell my name right.

if you cast enfeeble on a unit, and that unit contains an IC, the IC is not affected, cause hey, enfeeble only says it affects the whole unit, and special rules dont transfer onto ICs by default, even if the rule specifically states it affects the whole unit

Nope, that's covered by "Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects".

Read page 166.

So if I join a chaos lord to a unit of renegades that's allowed to recycle from Master of the Horde, I get my chaos lord back?

Awesome.

Just drop kantor within range of the units - it will give them plus 20 attacks. Probably better than attaching an IC anyways.

 Spellbound wrote:
So if I join a chaos lord to a unit of renegades that's allowed to recycle from Master of the Horde, I get my chaos lord back?

Awesome.

Is it a model rule or unit rule that lets them come back? I'd have to see the wording.

But if the unit comes back then yes technically so( man I hate RAW half the time).


As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Confusing? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely! Is it RAW? Unfortunately.

We just need to make a houserule that changes units to x+ IC when joined and just specify that it only counts as 1unit for scoring, killpoints, etc.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

As for the whole question of 2 ICs forming a unit the name is whichever one was joined: As so:

Librarian and chaplain.

Librarian joins chaplain the unit is chaplain

Chaplain joins librarian the unit is a librarian.

Citation please. Nowhere I can see states what they are "considered", just that they "form a unit".

blaktoof wrote:you have made a RAI statement that a rule that affects the unit name of a datasheet affects an unit on the tabletop.

Actually, I'm saying that the unit the datasheet references is affected by the rules in the datasheet, since datasheets cannot do anything on the table, just units. Remember, the datasheet is just a reference, nothing more, and defines the unit.

From the Necron codex as to the definition of datasheets:
"Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."

It then defines what each section is. How the name is listed as the Unit Name, not the Datasheet Name. The Faction is the Unit's Faction. The Battlefield Role is the Unit's Battlefield Role. Notice a trend?

blaktoof wrote:The unit name of a datasheet has models which are bought from it, the unit on the table top can include models that are not from that datasheet unit name.

True enough. Remember, I'm not the one having a problem with this, you are.

blaktoof wrote:The rules never state the unit benefits, they state the assault squad.

And what is "assault squad"? Oh, right, the unit name of the unit in question.

blaktoof wrote:the IC is never part of the assault squad, the IC can be part of the assault squads unit on the table top.

So, is it never or on the tabletop?

Remember, this is not in dispute here. It's where you taking it.

blaktoof wrote:the rule does not grant anything at all to the assault squads unit, it grants something to the assault squad.

Really? Can you find the definition of what an "assault squad" is if not a unit? And one that can do everything the rule describes?

blaktoof wrote:Why do you think they are referencing the datasheet the models are bought from instead of saying the unit? They obviously know the difference since the RAW for shock deployment states the unit, but there are no rules as written for the other three that state the unit.

They don't. They reference the unit by name, which is on the top of the datasheet where the "Unit Name" is referenced. Remember, the datasheet is only a reference point, nothing else.

They reference each unit by name because some portions will be affecting two of the units in the Formation, and the other portions will be affecting the other two units in the Formation. Relentless means nothing to an assault squad, after all, and they wanted to limit the other rules from parts of the Formation.

blaktoof wrote:your statements are purely a jump that the datasheet unit name is the same as the unit on the table top. Which is not true and can be proven by joining an IC unit from a different unit name datasheet [captain] to an assault squad unit from a different unit name datasheet[assault squad]

Which is true because you cannot join datasheets.

So, I go back to "What is the name of the unit, if not the one listed on its datasheet"? You keep telling me that the unit name on the datasheet is not the unit's name, yet, I cannot find one single phrase to support this statement. In fact, the definition for it is literally: "3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

blaktoof wrote:you now have an unit made of models, they benefit from unit rules.

Some of the models are space marines, some are sgt[or vet sgt] one is a captain model.

one of the models is from the datasheet with unit name:captain, some are from the datasheet with unit name: assault squad. They are all in one unit but they are not from the same place.

The IC is not part of the models from the assault squad datasheet, ever.

Which is besides the point, since the Special Rules for the Formation target the units by name, and not datasheets. Datasheets are not used on the tabletop, except as reference material for the units.

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

People keep saying the word unit like the rules say it effects the entire unit and the word unit is never used for assault squad.

If I join an inqusitor to my solo ministorum priest and they form a unit. They do not magically become ministorum priest squad. They are a single unit comprised of a ministorum priest and an inqusitor.

If I take ghazkull and he joins a unit of stormboyz. It does not become a stormboyz squad. It is a single unit comprised of ghazkull and stormboyz. People are confusing the name of the models with the Word unit. They are not the same thing.

Furthermore the greyknight strike force was worded differently and did state the entire unit. This is why that ruling is correct.
As pointed out a dozen times with many examples you can't attach an independsnt character to a formstion and gain those special rules.

But like I said this is why I only play itc rules in my local club so I can avoid "TFG" who wants to cheat and to argue all day And so far the itc, nova and every major tournament are also saying you can't attach Charscters and gain these rules from this formation. It's really just the few posters here trying to twist rules into an argument.

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

USR....not the same discussion

 quickfuze wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
OK so question for the nay-sayers.

We are playing a friendly game - SM CAD vs Eldar CAD. 3 Objectives (each worth 3 points), normal Secondary Objectives (First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord).

At the end of the game, I have First Blood. We both control 1 Objective. You have Linebreaker. Neither of us have Slay the Warlord. I have a squad of Guardians within 3" of the third objective. Your Captain is joined to a Tac Squad, and is the only model within 3" of that Objective.

Is the game a draw? If not, what is the final VP count for both armies? Why?

USR....not the same discussion

Please elaborate. In both situations a specific unit gets a bonus. In both situations an IC is joining the unit. So either in both situations the IC benefits from the bonus (note I did not say he has it, just benefits), or he does not benefit. So which is it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Yeup, that's what I said. The subject of each starting sentence is the unit, not the model. It gives qualifiers for what you of unit, true, but the focus is on the unit, not the model, see? By the way, you bolded the wrong part.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

Really, for all of those still arguing "Against" the charge, you have got to ask yourself:

When, during the game, do the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule?

When is a Specific Devastator Squad with attached IC suddenly awarded the Relentless Special Rule?


Upon that time of enlightenment in the eyes of the Emperor, that sacred Turn of arrival, who exactly gains "Relentless"? It is described in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule exactly who gets Relentless.
The lucky models in question are all part of that very Squad, even if they started the games as Independent Characters....

So the nay-sayers are still arguing the IC can deep-strike with the squad, but can't assault with it? The IC shouldn't even be able to deep strike on turn 1, by their logic.

They still seem to be confusing 'conferred' with 'benefit'.

You can benefit from a rule without being conferred it.

I highly doubt any tournament has made an FAQ ruling on this yet, but ITC in any case is a set of house rules you're free to play by, if you feel playing full-on 40k is a little too difficult for you to handle.
If you don't play normal 40k anyway why are you arguing the point so vehemently?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

I believe it's been stated but you are the TFG here. You bullied a player collectively and owe him an apology. Why so terrified of change?

Charistoph wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you keep asserting that the formation special rules never apply to models out side of the formation...

Yeah, aside from the general exception in the Independent Characters rules (which in turn STARTS with the exception), I haven't seen this properly quoted or even reference once, either.

And I have yet to see you properly quote or reference in the Formation entry where it states that "If a model in the unit has this special rule..." ala Stubborn/Fearless.

Funny, since neither Stubborn or Fearless state that either.

They both start referencing a unit as the subject, not the model. Do not limit yourself to the phrase, but consider the subject. Remember, Stubborn is only an example, and not the only way to say it. It never actually specifies a phrase to use. But the Stubborn addresses a unit for its rule. As does Fearless and Slow and Purposeful. Counter-Attack starts with affecting a unit, but then backtracks and states that only model that actually HAVE the rule are affected.

pg 172 wrote:
Stubborn
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 172 wrote:
Stealth
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 171 wrote:
Slow and Purposeful
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Counter-Attack
If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule...

pg 163 wrote:
Fearless
Units containing one or more models with the Fearless special rule...

You were saying? That's just the first line for each of those rules, by the way.

Yeup, that's what I said. The subject of each starting sentence is the unit, not the model. It gives qualifiers for what you of unit, true, but the focus is on the unit, not the model, see? By the way, you bolded the wrong part.

Go back and read 166.

Becoming part of the unit does not equate to you gaining the unit's special rules UNLESS THE RULE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT YOU GRANT THE RULE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A SINGLE MODEL WITH THE RULE.

Oh, and by the way?
You would NOT gain Relentless as part of the Devastator Squad because of the wording on Relentless:

pg 170 wrote:
Relentless
Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase. They are also allowed to charge in the same turn they fire Heavy, Ordnance, Rapid Fire, or Salvo weapons.

Nowhere does it fit the description of what Independent Characters are allowed to gain on pg 166.

pg 166 wrote:
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself(as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Except the fact on how the Devastator Squad got Relentless in this case. It is not a blanket rule on the data sheet like Necron Reclamation Legion, but is granted to the Squad, by unit name. And the IC in question is part of the Squad, if they arrived together.

An IC that joined after the Deep Strike was resolved would not benefit, I believe.

An IC that joined at any point "would not benefit", since it explicitly states that IC only benefit if it is from a Special Rule that grants it to the whole unit if a single model has it.

If it granted "Slow and Purposeful", then yes--the IC would benefit. But it grants Relentless, which doesn't extend to the whole unit by virtue of a single model having it.

BlackTalos wrote:
Really, for all of those still arguing "Against" the charge, you have got to ask yourself:

When, during the game, do the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Assault Force have the Relentless Special Rule?

When is a Specific Devastator Squad with attached IC suddenly awarded the Relentless Special Rule?


Upon that time of enlightenment in the eyes of the Emperor, that sacred Turn of arrival, who exactly gains "Relentless"? It is described in the "First Fire then the Blade" Special Rule exactly who gets Relentless.
The lucky models in question are all part of that very Squad, even if they started the games as Independent Characters....

Was the Independent Character taken as part of the Devastator Squad when you purchased the unit?
Was the Independent Character taken as part of the Assault Squad when you purchased the unit?

You can keep trying to play it off as your interpretation, but that's just it: your interpretation.

Relentless is a SPECIAL RULE and per the rules as written, it has to be permissive in order to be granted to ICs joining the unit. It does not grant to characters joining the unit, period. End of story.
The Assault Squad portion as well is a SPECIAL RULE intended for an ASSAULT SQUAD taken as part of the Formation. The IC is NOT part of the formation, whether they are joined to the Assault Squad or not.

I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

The IC is part of the Assault Squad when he joins it. You accept that he can join them for deepstrike, but not other things? Bizarro doublethink.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I like how you made the word of the units NAME into the word unit, for rules that affect units.

saying "captain" is not the same as saying "unit" even though a captain can be an unit, just as saying "assault squad" is not the same as saying "unit" even though an assault squad can be an unit. The IC is never from or part of "assault squad".

There is a reason the rules as written say "unit benefits" for one of the rules, and do not say "unit benefits" for the other three.

The IC is part of the Assault Squad when he joins it. You accept that he can join them for deepstrike, but not other things? Bizarro doublethink.

Deep Strike is a USR not a Formation specific rule.

I think the point he was making is that some people are accepting the IC may arrive from Deep Strike on the first turn with the units in the formation, but may not charge.

i.e. they may benefit from the formation rule for one purpose but not the other...

.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Just had a guy try this. His reason "I read x on dakka" we all laughed n told him no, it isn't happening. QQ commenced and he rage quit. Tfg at its finest right there. Fething marine players.

My thoughts exactly. Dockeycavehammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread has the "It will not die" special rule.