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.

@thimn nope same formation, it actually doesn't say what chapter the marines are, so I'm treating mine as blood angles so I can get there bonuses. Point to anywhere it says I can't


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And all you have to do is call major events TOs ask them and they will tell you, I've talked to Canadian TOs and a TO from the UK. And its relevant to the discussion because it only matters when you get to use the formation which it at events. You can use it at local stores but know one will play you. This whole discussion is stupid cuz the people that want it to work will argue it without any actually clear rules.

Dman137 wrote:
@thimn nope same formation, it actually doesn't say what chapter the marines are, so I'm treating mine as blood angles so I can get there bonuses. Point to anywhere it says I can't

The Faction of the Formation is Codex Marines.

Of course, I'd be lenient if you show me what the Chapter Tactics of the Blood Angels are.

Wow! 18 pages of people ignoring the rules they are arguing over.

Here is what we know:

Shock Deployment: All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in Deep Strike Reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this Formation will arrive during your first or second turn. The entire Skyhammer Annihilation Force automatically arrives on the turn you choose—no Reserve Rolls are required. Ignore this Formation's Drop Pods for the purposes of the Drop Pod Assault special rule.

The rules for Combined Reserved Units covers this, allowing the IC to arrive with the formation if it's embarked on one of the Drop Pods, or if it already has Deep Strike on its own.

First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn.

So, we all know that an IC cannot confer it's special rules to a unit unless the rules in question give permission, nor can the unit. However, the IC can benefit or be penalized by rules that are applied to the unit, as noted in the last sentence of the IC's Special Rules paragraph, and again in the paragraph detail on-going effects. How this applies is that FtFttB grants the unit the rule upon arrival, a condition that occurs after the IC has joined the unit. Yes, it is the Devastator and Assault squads that have the FtFttB special rule, not the IC. However, it is the Squad and the attached IC that gains either Relentless or Charging from Deep Strike because effects that are conferred to the unit effect the IC as long as the IC remains attached, or until the duration is complete. In this case it's only on the turn the unit arrives. In this case Relentless and Charging from Deep Strike are conferred effects, not unit specific special rules. And per RAW, once the IC leaves the unit, or once the effect is over, the IC no longer benefits from the conferred effect.

And yes, the word "conferred" is used in the IC rules covering these effects.

SJ

It's hilarious that this is 18 pages and counting...

If you plan on doing this, tell your opponent ahead of time. If they don't agree to play you, either play the IC in the traditional way or find someone else to play.

End of the day, this rule debate will be subjective until there's a FAQ or rule change. I suggest everyone walk away from this thread and do something productive instead.

Paint a model you've been putting off, build that kit that's been sitting on the shelf for years...

Or you could come back here every 30 minutes and flog this dead horse.

My 2 cents.

Peace.

the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

there is no RAW that states 3/4ths of these rules affect the unit.

If I have an IC with EW and he is on his own I can say "that unit has EW" it is as true a statement as saying an assault squad with no attached IC all has FTFTB and it affects the squad, so the whole unit has the rule- but the model(s) in the unit do not have a rule that states actually states "the unit has eternal warrior" or "if one model in this unit has this rule then the unit has eternal warrior" or even "units in this formation have eternal warrior" as such that has an effect on a "unit".

Yes it is a unit and the models have a rule that affect the models that are currently in it, but the wording of the rule never specifies it affects the UNIT.

Just because the a unit has special rules does not mean the special rules are all special rules that affect a unit as a whole.

the same is true for 3/4ths of these rules. There is no RAW support that they are unit rules, because the special rule never has a single rule as written that it affects the unit.

Any rule which states its benefits affect 'the unit' either works on ICs all the time or does not.

You cannot pick and chose. Stubborn is a special rule which when any model with it is part of a unit the rest of the unit can benefit from it. Objective Secured is a special rule that states a specified unit has scoring priority. Hatred is a special rule that states the unit can re-roll to hit in the first turn. None of these rules specifically say they are conferred to ICs. Simply the unit.

The argument comes to a crux when you must define whether the term 'Assault Squad' refers to the unit on the table or whether it refers to the dataslate called 'Assault Squad'. A unit is still a unit when ICs join them. Is an Assault Squad still an Assault Squad when an IC joins?

Ob Sec is a good example. If I have a CAD and a Battle Brother Allied Detachment, if I join the HQ from the Allies to a Troop from the CAD, does he count for the purposes of Objective Secured if he is the only model within 3" of the objective? Or does the unit count as being 3" within the objective?

I am almost certain that tournaments will rule that this formation works with attached ICs, because the counter argument destroys many of the conventions that we have all taken for granted in terms of Special Rules conferring to ICs for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Wow! 18 pages of people ignoring the rules they are arguing over.

Here is what we know:

Shock Deployment: All units in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force start the game in Deep Strike Reserve. Instead of using the normal deployment and reserve rules for these units, you can, during deployment, choose whether this Formation will arrive during your first or second turn. The entire Skyhammer Annihilation Force automatically arrives on the turn you choose—no Reserve Rolls are required. Ignore this Formation's Drop Pods for the purposes of the Drop Pod Assault special rule.

The rules for Combined Reserved Units covers this, allowing the IC to arrive with the formation if it's embarked on one of the Drop Pods, or if it already has Deep Strike on its own.

First the Fire, then the Blade: On the turn they arrive from Deep Strike Reserve, the Devastator Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force have the Relentless special rule and the Assault Squads can charge even though they arrived from Reserves that turn.

So, we all know that an IC cannot confer it's special rules to a unit unless the rules in question give permission, nor can the unit. However, the IC can benefit or be penalized by rules that are applied to the unit, as noted in the last sentence of the IC's Special Rules paragraph, and again in the paragraph detail on-going effects. How this applies is that FtFttB grants the unit the rule upon arrival, a condition that occurs after the IC has joined the unit. Yes, it is the Devastator and Assault squads that have the FtFttB special rule, not the IC. However, it is the Squad and the attached IC that gains either Relentless or Charging from Deep Strike because effects that are conferred to the unit effect the IC as long as the IC remains attached, or until the duration is complete. In this case it's only on the turn the unit arrives. In this case Relentless and Charging from Deep Strike are conferred effects, not unit specific special rules. And per RAW, once the IC leaves the unit, or once the effect is over, the IC no longer benefits from the conferred effect.

And yes, the word "conferred" is used in the IC rules covering these effects.

SJ

I like this. Well written. Again, it becomes an issue as to whether Assault Squad (which is clearly used to differentiate them from Devastator Squad in the formation) can be interpreted as 'the unit' for all intents and purposes.

18 pages in, and the correct answer still has not been found wanting

Fact, the unit that the rule targets never changes - to claim otherwise breaks a rule. The rule lets the unit charge, and this does not alter if an IC is attached.

Saying otherwise is requiring a house rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
18 pages in, and the correct answer still has not been found wanting

Fact, the unit that the rule targets never changes - to claim otherwise breaks a rule. The rule lets the unit charge, and this does not alter if an IC is attached.

Saying otherwise is requiring a house rule.

please quote where in the rule it says "the unit may charge.."

Assault squad is the name of the unit. The name of the unit doesn't change. Of course, if it did, you would have proven this by now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assault squad is the name of the unit. The name of the unit doesn't change. Of course, if it did, you would have proven this by now.

so you have no quotes that state it affects the unit.

only what you believe they intended by stating the squads from the formation instead of using the wording "the unit" or any permutation of unit which has been used in the BRB and every codex to actually denote a rule that has rules as written permission to affect a unit.

using the logic that an IC attached to an assault squad, the IC becomes part of the 'assault squad' and not just part of the unit that has models from the assault squad has implications with which models belong to which datasheets in which formations. You are also at this point assuming that when they reference 'assault squad' they actually meant to say 'the unit' as the name of the unit purchased from a datasheet for the formation is not the same as saying "the unit" for rules purposes. Since a unit can include models outside of the datasheet it was purchased from under certain circumstances- like an IC joining the unit.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assault squad is the name of the unit. The name of the unit doesn't change. Of course, if it did, you would have proven this by now.

so you have no quotes that state it affects the unit.

except that it has been quoted several times that it affects the unit...

the special rule states that the "assault squad" (the name of the unit) gets the benefits of the rules for charging out of DS.


it is stated PLAINLY that it affects the unit and these rules have been quoted numerous times


I fully expect you to move the goal post or claim that somehow referencing a unit by name is somehow not referencing a unit by name

the unit of ASM is still a unit of ASM even after character joins it, it does not magically become a new type, or name, of unit.

 easysauce wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assault squad is the name of the unit. The name of the unit doesn't change. Of course, if it did, you would have proven this by now.

so you have no quotes that state it affects the unit.

except that it has been quoted several times that it affects the unit...

the special rule states that the "assault squad" (the name of the unit) gets the benefits of the rules for charging out of DS.


it is stated PLAINLY that it affects the unit and these rules have been quoted numerous times


I fully expect you to move the goal post or claim that somehow referencing a unit by name is somehow not referencing a unit by name

the unit of ASM is still a unit of ASM even after character joins it, it does not magically become a new type, or name, of unit.

If it was stated plainly it would say the assault squad units, or units of assault squads from this formation, or something where it actually plainly states the unit.

You also are inferring that the name of the datasheet is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes, which it is not.

If I take an ork warband, the warboss from that formationt may call a waaagh every turn. If I attach Ghazkul Thraka to that Warboss by the admission of people here who are claiming that the data sheet name is the same as saying "unit" to benefit this rule, going so far as to actually state in this thread that if you join an IC to an assault squad the IC is now a model from the datasheet: 'assault squad', then Ghazkul Thraka is now a model from the datasheet: 'warboss', just the same as people are claiming an IC is now a model from 'assault squad' so without the rule for ork warband ever saying 'a unit with this special rule may call a waaaagh every turn' you are claiming Ghaz can now call a Waaagh every turn [as he is able to call a waaagh, and is now joined to the Warboss making him a warboss from that detachment]. This is not how the rules work. It has to say it benefits the unit, or confers the unit, it has to use the word UNIT to be a rule that affects a UNIT, anything else is not the rules as written regarding if it affects a unit.

blaktoof wrote:
the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

No, they just don't subscribe to your, as yet unsupported, perspective.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

Already addressed, several times. Where does it state calling a unit by name is no longer referencing the unit as a whole, but only models listed in its data sheet.

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

Incorrect. At no point is the word data sheet even used during these rules. A good thing, too, since it would make the rules useless. Data sheets cannot be kept in Deep Strike Reserves, but units can. Data sheets are used for reference to define a unit, it does not replace the unit. Nor does referencing a unit by name ever described by any rule as ignoring any attached ICs.

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

Incorrect on the last, it references units by name. So, again, you need to prove when an IC joins a unit, the unit looses its unit name, can no longer be referenced by name, or any rules applied thus only apply to the models referenced in its data sheet.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

So, by your definition, these three rules do absolutely nothing, since they do not affect units by word, just data sheets which cannot do the actions required of them. Units are held in Deep Strike Reserves. Units are deployed via Deep Strike. Units select targets to shoot. Units Charge. Data sheets only define the units who do these things.

In other words, Blacktoof is going by unsupported rules and definitions and continues to push them without ever actually referencing them.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

No, they just don't subscribe to your, as yet unsupported, perspective.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

Already addressed, several times. Where does it state calling a unit by name is no longer referencing the unit as a whole, but only models listed in its data sheet.

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

Incorrect. At no point is the word data sheet even used during these rules. A good thing, too, since it would make the rules useless. Data sheets cannot be kept in Deep Strike Reserves, but units can. Data sheets are used for reference to define a unit, it does not replace the unit. Nor does referencing a unit by name ever described by any rule as ignoring any attached ICs.

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

Incorrect on the last, it references units by name. So, again, you need to prove when an IC joins a unit, the unit looses its unit name, can no longer be referenced by name, or any rules applied thus only apply to the models referenced in its data sheet.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

So, by your definition, these three rules do absolutely nothing, since they do not affect units by word, just data sheets which cannot do the actions required of them. Units are held in Deep Strike Reserves. Units are deployed via Deep Strike. Units select targets to shoot. Units Charge. Data sheets only define the units who do these things.

In other words, Blacktoof is going by unsupported rules and definitions and continues to push them without ever actually referencing them.

I dont think you understand that models on the tabletop are derived from datasheets which are organized into formations/detachments. claiming the datasheet has no rules is the same as claiming formations have no rules, great your army has no rules. Good luck playing a game.

blaktoof wrote:
the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

there is no RAW that states 3/4ths of these rules affect the unit.

If I have an IC with EW and he is on his own I can say "that unit has EW" it is as true a statement as saying an assault squad with no attached IC all has FTFTB and it affects the squad, so the whole unit has the rule- but the model(s) in the unit do not have a rule that states actually states "the unit has eternal warrior" or "if one model in this unit has this rule then the unit has eternal warrior" or even "units in this formation have eternal warrior" as such that has an effect on a "unit".

Yes it is a unit and the models have a rule that affect the models that are currently in it, but the wording of the rule never specifies it affects the UNIT.

Just because the a unit has special rules does not mean the special rules are all special rules that affect a unit as a whole.

the same is true for 3/4ths of these rules. There is no RAW support that they are unit rules, because the special rule never has a single rule as written that it affects the unit.

Your entire argument is based in the assumption an "Assault Squad" isn't a unit of assault marines, despite the fact formations are comprised of units. Your interpretation is a bigger rules stretch than anything else posted here.

Agtthot wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

there is no RAW that states 3/4ths of these rules affect the unit.

If I have an IC with EW and he is on his own I can say "that unit has EW" it is as true a statement as saying an assault squad with no attached IC all has FTFTB and it affects the squad, so the whole unit has the rule- but the model(s) in the unit do not have a rule that states actually states "the unit has eternal warrior" or "if one model in this unit has this rule then the unit has eternal warrior" or even "units in this formation have eternal warrior" as such that has an effect on a "unit".

Yes it is a unit and the models have a rule that affect the models that are currently in it, but the wording of the rule never specifies it affects the UNIT.

Just because the a unit has special rules does not mean the special rules are all special rules that affect a unit as a whole.

the same is true for 3/4ths of these rules. There is no RAW support that they are unit rules, because the special rule never has a single rule as written that it affects the unit.

Your entire argument is based in the assumption an "Assault Squad" isn't a unit of assault marines, despite the fact formations are comprised of units. Your interpretation is a bigger rules stretch than anything else posted here.

Ive pointed out about 10 times in this thread that formations are made of units, units drawn from datasheets with names.

an assault squad is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the 5 models from it are placed on the table.

an IC is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the model from it is placed on the table.

you can move the IC into coherency with the assault squad, and they are a single unit now.

The IC is not from the assault squad unit that was bought for that formation from that datasheet.

We are not told anywhere we can count the IC as being from that datasheet 'assault squad' from that formation 'skyhammer annhilation force' because we are told it is from its datasheet, from its formation/detachment and may not be from any other formation/detachment.

are they a single unit, yes!

is the IC from the assault squad? no.

The datasheet is for Codex:Space Marines, and it pulls the units from Codex:Space Marines, which has a fast attack option called "Assault Sauad" which is a unit of assault marines.

Independent Characters have explicit permission to join models while they are in reserves, being on the table in coherency is not the only way to join a unit. He doesn't need to be "from" the formation because Independent Characters have explicit permission to gain abilities that affect the entire unit they have joined (as long as the remained attached) because they are a part of that unit for ALL RULES PURPOSES.

You are saying units aren't units until they are on the table? If a model is still in reserve when the game ends, it counts as a kill point as a destroyed unit. You roll 1 dice per unit for reserves because each unit is distinct, and any rolls (such as outflank, bonuses to reserves, coming in when a unit comes in, hunters from hyperspace, etc) are effected by a units special rules because as soon as the game starts they are units.

blaktoof wrote:

Agtthot wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the people who claim this works for "units" are leaving out a lot of the facts about the rule as written.

1. The rule affects "assault squads in the skyhammer annihilation force". Not "units in this formation" "units with this rule" "assault squad units from this formation" or even just "assault squads"

2. Assault squads in this formation references the datasheet used to fill the formation requirement, it in no way rules as written references the unit on the table table top, because it never uses the word 'unit'. unlike 'shock deployment' from the same formation which could have easily said "devestator and assault squads from this formation" but instead said "units from this formation"

3. For an IC to benefit from the special rule it does not have, it has to say it benefits the unit, or it benefits the unit if one model has it. This rule never says it.

4. if the rules as written do not state it benefits "the unit" by using the words "unit" which is a rule in this game with specific meanings- and not just one of many ways to describe a grouping of things- then it is not a rule that affects units.

there is no RAW that states 3/4ths of these rules affect the unit.

If I have an IC with EW and he is on his own I can say "that unit has EW" it is as true a statement as saying an assault squad with no attached IC all has FTFTB and it affects the squad, so the whole unit has the rule- but the model(s) in the unit do not have a rule that states actually states "the unit has eternal warrior" or "if one model in this unit has this rule then the unit has eternal warrior" or even "units in this formation have eternal warrior" as such that has an effect on a "unit".

Yes it is a unit and the models have a rule that affect the models that are currently in it, but the wording of the rule never specifies it affects the UNIT.

Just because the a unit has special rules does not mean the special rules are all special rules that affect a unit as a whole.

the same is true for 3/4ths of these rules. There is no RAW support that they are unit rules, because the special rule never has a single rule as written that it affects the unit.

Your entire argument is based in the assumption an "Assault Squad" isn't a unit of assault marines, despite the fact formations are comprised of units. Your interpretation is a bigger rules stretch than anything else posted here.

Ive pointed out about 10 times in this thread that formations are made of units, units drawn from datasheets with names.

an assault squad is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the 5 models from it are placed on the table.

an IC is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the model from it is placed on the table.

you can move the IC into coherency with the assault squad, and they are a single unit now.

The IC is not from the assault squad unit that was bought for that formation from that datasheet.

We are not told anywhere we can count the IC as being from that datasheet 'assault squad' from that formation 'skyhammer annhilation force' because we are told it is from its datasheet, from its formation/detachment and may not be from any other formation/detachment.

are they a single unit, yes!

is the IC from the assault squad? no.

Its a good thing nobody is trying to claim the IC is from the formation then. We can easily show that the IC is part of the assault squad. Which would then allow for the squad to assault.

One day some of you will actually read the rules, rather than just the individual rules you think support your argument.

As has been covered numerous time, ICs are their own oddity within the rules that count as many things while not being fully one thing. Yet, we have a nice set of rules that tell us what the IC can and cannot do while attached to a unit. An IC cannot share it's special rules with the unit it joins, although the IC can benefit from effect applied to the unit. FtFttB is a special rule not shared with the IC, although Relentless gained from FtFttB is a benefit conferred to the unit at a specific time during the game, not a special rule on the Devastator Squad data sheet.

SJ

 bullyboy wrote:
can't read through all of this, and I assume not resolved, but I wanted to to see this situation in another formation.

Let's say someone is taking Jain Zar and joins a unit of Harlequins from a Masque formation. The formation rule allows harlies to run and charge after turn 1. So with this being said, having Jain Zar join a harlie troupe would allow them to add 3" to their run distance (after fleet rolls if necessary) and then charge. Jain Zar's rules also subtract -2 from Ld of unit in combat, which could be further taken down by 2 from the mas of secrets on a seer.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a unit move 6" from a raider, deploy 6" run x+3", then assault 2D6, and not have that unit be able to fire overwatch due to banshee mask. That is a massive charge/threat range.

I haven't seen anyone argue the point about characters joining a masque and reaping the benefits and so the same situation applies here. My position follows several here that the "Special Rules" situation pretty clearly states that they do not confer to the IC joining the unit (and vice versa). With the massive number of formations being introduced by GW, with many of them having some strong special rules, the chances of breaking the game with allowing ICs join these formations and gain their special rules increases quite drastically.

That will only work if Jain Zar is your Warlord. Jain Zar has two different instances of +3 Run. Her Warlord Trait, and the Acrobatic special rule (which requires every model in the unit to have). As such if Jain Zar is not your Warlord, the unit will not be able to run D6+3", only D6".

I have to laugh, so a few people on an online Forum who are looking to exploit a rule are right and the stance of GW is wrong? Just because you are some of the most vocal does not mean that you are right, not even close. Either way, they have yet to prove they are right as they continually ignore how Independent Characters interact with Special Rules as the basis for their argument is "they gain the abilities of the unit they join for all rule purposes" EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES and despite me being clear on the matter multiple times they try to pick apart the argument without success. I personally am done with this thread as well for several reasons, mainly the fact that we are not going to convince each other we are right and that some people are going to cheat and abuse this against other gamers so they can win games. Im just going to lay it out on the line again and be happy with the fact that I know im right and that GW has the same stance with me, as well as the people running the National Tournament scene because they understand the rules:

-Assault Marines, Devastator Squads and Drop Pods are able to be taken in the Formations Army List Entry, the IC cannot.

-Both the Assault Marine Squads and Devastator Squads (OR UNITS) benefit from the Formations Special Rules, it even lists them specifically as "Devastators from a Skyhammer Assault Formation....and the Assault Squads". So they are a Specific unit with Specific Special Rules

-Independent Character joins the unit and now is part of the unit for all rules purposes EXCEPT Special Rules, this is made perfectly clear on page 166 in the Rulebook, Do not try to ignore it, it is also listed AFTER he joins the unit and follows their rules for all intended rules purposes meaning after he joins the unit you have to take it into account.

-Being an Independent Character he has to follow Special Rules a certain way, and as stated in the Rulebook in regards to Special Rules "unless specifically stated in the special rule the special rules of the unit do not confer upon the Independent Character or vice versa" This is not RAW it is the jist of what is said, I have typed it up to many times already for it to just be ignored.

-Because the Special Rule "First Fire then the Blade" does not Specifically confer to the Independent Character he does not get to charge with the Assault Marines.

That is it plain and simple, not in any of the Formations created so far and in the case of this Formation now can an Independent Character join a unit and benefit from the Fromations Special Rules and if you feel and think otherwise then I hate to break it to you but you are cheating. You can be as vocal about it as you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

There is alot of wishing and non-rules based support in your post gmaleron.

1st Point, Correct
2nd Point Correct
3rd Point Correct
4th Point Nobodoy is disputing what you have generalized.
5th Point - You are correct its not conferred. Nobody is saying it is conferred. Conferred and benefitting is different though, as has been shown multiple times. So while its not conferred to it, the IC does benefit from the units ability to charge.

Your assertions of cheating are childish when we are discussing the rules of the game and what is allowed. If you even bothered to read this thread you would notice that people who acknowledge that by RAW the IC can assault doesn't mean its good for the game and that we want it.

So lets table the cheating talk, we are discussing rules. You may want to start a discussion with TOs in another thread about how they are going to react to this formaiton.

blaktoof wrote:I dont think you understand that models on the tabletop are derived from datasheets which are organized into formations/detachments. claiming the datasheet has no rules is the same as claiming formations have no rules, great your army has no rules. Good luck playing a game.

Don't misquote me, it is rude.

I have stated, and referenced to boot, that data sheets are references which define the unit, but are not the unit itself. The data sheet tells us the name of the unit, special rules, options, and other pertinent information of the unit. A data sheet cannot Deep Strike, but a unit can. A data sheet cannot shoot, but a unit can. A data sheet cannot Charge, but a unit can.

The Formations rules, then, cannot be referring to data sheets, but units. Do those units have data sheets, you betcha. Does the Formation's rules state they only affect the unit as described in its data sheet? No. They refer to units by name or generically as the case is needed.

blaktoof wrote:Ive pointed out about 10 times in this thread that formations are made of units, units drawn from datasheets with names.

Which is besides the point nor in contention.

an assault squad is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the 5 models from it are placed on the table.

Again, not in contention, except we could be 10 models at the beginning of deployment.

an IC is an unit when it is bought from its datasheet for a formation, and when the model from it is placed on the table.

Not entirely. An IC can already be joined and part of a unit when it is placed on the table. It requires that both be announced in Reserves together.

In addition, there are no rules for a unit within a unit so far as I have found.

The IC is not from the assault squad unit that was bought for that formation from that datasheet.

Again, not in contention, what is in contention is that this Formation's rules only apply to models purchased as part of the units, when only units are mentioned.

We are not told anywhere we can count the IC as being from that datasheet 'assault squad' from that formation 'skyhammer annhilation force' because we are told it is from its datasheet, from its formation/detachment and may not be from any other formation/detachment.

Considering the Formation's rules do not state that being on the data sheet is a requirement, nor required when a unit is called by name, I do not see why this is a necessary concept that needs to be pursued, much less used.

Thimn wrote:Its a good thing nobody is trying to claim the IC is from the formation then. We can easily show that the IC is part of the assault squad. Which would then allow for the squad to assault.

Exactly.

 Happyjew wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
can't read through all of this, and I assume not resolved, but I wanted to to see this situation in another formation.

Let's say someone is taking Jain Zar and joins a unit of Harlequins from a Masque formation. The formation rule allows harlies to run and charge after turn 1. So with this being said, having Jain Zar join a harlie troupe would allow them to add 3" to their run distance (after fleet rolls if necessary) and then charge. Jain Zar's rules also subtract -2 from Ld of unit in combat, which could be further taken down by 2 from the mas of secrets on a seer.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a unit move 6" from a raider, deploy 6" run x+3", then assault 2D6, and not have that unit be able to fire overwatch due to banshee mask. That is a massive charge/threat range.

I haven't seen anyone argue the point about characters joining a masque and reaping the benefits and so the same situation applies here. My position follows several here that the "Special Rules" situation pretty clearly states that they do not confer to the IC joining the unit (and vice versa). With the massive number of formations being introduced by GW, with many of them having some strong special rules, the chances of breaking the game with allowing ICs join these formations and gain their special rules increases quite drastically.

That will only work if Jain Zar is your Warlord. Jain Zar has two different instances of +3 Run. Her Warlord Trait, and the Acrobatic special rule (which requires every model in the unit to have). As such if Jain Zar is not your Warlord, the unit will not be able to run D6+3", only D6".

yes, I should have clarified that she would be the warlord. But it still stands, she allows the unit to run an extra 3", but i do not believe the formation special rule allows Jain Zar to assault with the unit after it has run. If people are agreeing with this interpretation, then allowing ICs to charge with a skyhammer assault sqd should work too. I just do not believe that is the case.

 gmaleron wrote:
That is it plain and simple, not in any of the Formations created so far and in the case of this Formation now can an Independent Character join a unit and benefit from the Fromations Special Rules and if you feel and think otherwise then I hate to break it to you but you are cheating. You can be as vocal about it as you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Since some people seemed to have missed the memo, a reminder:

 Lorek wrote:
5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

If you can't discuss rules dispassionately, you don't belong past page 3 of the typical YMDC thread. This is the deep end - threads of this length usually lack a definitive answer, and the people discussing them are usually interested in the minutiae of rules language for its own sake, rather than using such constructions in an actual game.

 gmaleron wrote:
I have to laugh, so a few people on an online Forum who are looking to exploit a rule are right and the stance of GW is wrong? Just because you are some of the most vocal does not mean that you are right, not even close. Either way, they have yet to prove they are right as they continually ignore how Independent Characters interact with Special Rules as the basis for their argument is "they gain the abilities of the unit they join for all rule purposes" EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL RULES and despite me being clear on the matter multiple times they try to pick apart the argument without success. I personally am done with this thread as well for several reasons, mainly the fact that we are not going to convince each other we are right and that some people are going to cheat and abuse this against other gamers so they can win games. Im just going to lay it out on the line again and be happy with the fact that I know im right and that GW has the same stance with me, as well as the people running the National Tournament scene because they understand the rules:

-Assault Marines, Devastator Squads and Drop Pods are able to be taken in the Formations Army List Entry, the IC cannot.

-Both the Assault Marine Squads and Devastator Squads (OR UNITS) benefit from the Formations Special Rules, it even lists them specifically as "Devastators from a Skyhammer Assault Formation....and the Assault Squads". So they are a Specific unit with Specific Special Rules

-Independent Character joins the unit and now is part of the unit for all rules purposes EXCEPT Special Rules, this is made perfectly clear on page 166 in the Rulebook, Do not try to ignore it, it is also listed AFTER he joins the unit and follows their rules for all intended rules purposes meaning after he joins the unit you have to take it into account.

-Being an Independent Character he has to follow Special Rules a certain way, and as stated in the Rulebook in regards to Special Rules "unless specifically stated in the special rule the special rules of the unit do not confer upon the Independent Character or vice versa" This is not RAW it is the jist of what is said, I have typed it up to many times already for it to just be ignored.

-Because the Special Rule "First Fire then the Blade" does not Specifically confer to the Independent Character he does not get to charge with the Assault Marines.

That is it plain and simple, not in any of the Formations created so far and in the case of this Formation now can an Independent Character join a unit and benefit from the Fromations Special Rules and if you feel and think otherwise then I hate to break it to you but you are cheating. You can be as vocal about it as you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

If it were as simple as that, this thread wouldn't have gone on as long as it did. Your post is also incredibly insulting with the implication that everyone who doesn't agree with you on the interpretation of rules is an exploitative, abusive cheater. Your words, not mine.

ICs do not gain special rules that have been assigned to models in a unit. This is true. However, the IC does not make the decision to charge anymore than the individual models in an Assault Squad would. It's entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the IC has this rule. The decision to charge is made at a UNIT level and the Formation rules tell us that the UNIT can charge on the turn it comes into play. We know it's on a UNIT level because the UNIT's name is used.

I feel like most of the people saying that the IC can't participate in the charge as a member of the overall Unit don't fully understand how declaring a charge works. I also feel like there is a general inability to differentiate between a unit having rules and the models within a unit having rules. Also a general inability to differentiate between a unit and the models that make up a unit. Example, if a Formation rule tells you that a unit can do XYZ, the models in that unit NEVER have that rule. The overall unit does. Hence, it's not relevant whether or not the IC gets the rule (he doesn't). The Assault Marines also don't have the rule. The Assault Squad UNIT gets the ability.

yeah,

RAW is clear, though I can see why people would want it not to work that way, IC's can join the unit of ASM, and the unit of ASM gains the benifit.

at no point in the game is there a check to see if the IC can charge, its the unit, if you allow the IC to ds with the unit, the same allowance lets the IC charge along with the unit when the unit is allowed to do so.


only RAI and HIWIPI is unclear, personally, I take anything out of my friendly lists that people have tempers over, simply to ensure a fun game for both sides.

 easysauce wrote:
yeah,

RAW is clear, though I can see why people would want it not to work that way, IC's can join the unit of ASM, and the unit of ASM gains the benifit.

at no point in the game is there a check to see if the IC can charge, its the unit, if you allow the IC to ds with the unit, the same allowance lets the IC charge along with the unit when the unit is allowed to do so.


only RAI and HIWIPI is unclear, personally, I take anything out of my friendly lists that people have tempers over, simply to ensure a fun game for both sides.

I know that you know, that RAW is rules as written.

I also know that you know, nowhere in the rule FTFTTB does it state "the unit of ASM gains the benifit."

unless you can show where in the special rule it states unit, you cannot say that it is clear, or the rules as WRITTEN, because no such word is written in the rules.

its like saying there is a rule "The Warboss may reroll to hit rolls in assault"

means "The Warboss unit may rerool to hit rolls in assault"

it is not the same, and UNIT is not written in the rules.

blaktoof wrote:
5039bd5dc20a68ec6147d05d88eee9ff.jpg]I also know that you know, nowhere in the rule FTFTTB does it state "the unit of ASM gains the benifit."

unless you can show where in the special rule it states unit, you cannot say that it is clear, or the rules as WRITTEN, because no such word is written in the rules.

That makes no sense. If it does not mean the (unit of) Assault Squad then it's impossible to benefit the models of that unit, because they are not called "Assault Squad".

its like saying there is a rule "The Warboss may reroll to hit rolls in assault"

means "The Warboss unit may rerool to hit rolls in assault"

This is a disingenuous comparison. "(The unit of) Assault Squad" should not be compared with the sentence, "the Warboss('s unit)" because you've worded the examples differently, with different resulting meanings.

What is an assault squad other than a unit? Can a reference to an assault squad be anything other than a reference to a unit?