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.

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

Sorry, after reading everything of relevance, I have to agree with the IC getting to assault.

Pretty much any other time in a game ICs get the special rules of a squad. Also the detriments.

But in the end you will have a tooled up smashfether in your face T1 because of this formation

blaktoof wrote:
no.

its disingenuous to say that the name of a unit is the say as the word "the unit" for rules.

So you're saying that when a rule states it applies to "Assault Squads" it in fact does not apply to the Assault Squad as a unit? What does it refer to then?

The example is not worded differently. The only difference is the word warboss is not a word that is similar to the word unit in english language, the word 'squad' is a word that is similar to unit in the english language, but squad as a word is not the basis for an unit receiving special rules according to the rules in the BRB or any codex.

comparing the name of one datasheet to the name of another datasheet and then pointing out if the name of one somehow means "the unit" for rules such as "Units in this formation may reroll their to hit rolls in assault" which is what some people in this thread claims is said when a rule would say "datasheet name from this formation can reroll its to hit rolls in assault.

That's directly in opposition to what the rules say about Independent characters being part of the unit they're joined to for all rules purposes.

If you can claim that the datasheet name is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes, then all datasheet names are "units" for all references without a rules quote to say otherwise. Consdering there are no rules that are written which state a permission to count the name of datasheets used to buy units for formations as units for rules purposes. [yes the models from a datasheet make an unit on the tabletop, that does not mean rules references to the name of said data sheet is the same as saying "unit" because you can have an unit with models from different datasheets which are in different detachments...] It would be hard to find such a rule that states otherwise.

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.

Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000."

The army list entry for Assault Squad describes a unit of Assault Marines, no?

An Independent Character joined to a unit of Assault Marines counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, so once again a reference to "Assault Squad" is in fact describing a unit of Assault Marines; an Assault Squad unit.

It's pretty simple common sense that "Assault Squads" refers to the unit made up of that army list entry, thus "Assault Squads" means "units made up of Assault Squad army list entry".

ITC ruled against IC assaulting or even attaching to the unit formation and most likely NOVA also.

I'm happy... If people want to play friendly casual games allowing IC to charge T1 then go at it!

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
ITC ruled against IC assaulting or even attaching to the unit formation and most likely NOVA also.

I'm happy... If people want to play friendly casual games allowing IC to charge T1 then go at it!

Which means nothing, because they blatantly change rules to fit their whim all the time.

Glad the East Coast doesn't give two about the ITC's rulings.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
no.

its disingenuous to say that the name of a unit is the say as the word "the unit" for rules.

So you're saying that when a rule states it applies to "Assault Squads" it in fact does not apply to the Assault Squad as a unit? What does it refer to then?

The example is not worded differently. The only difference is the word warboss is not a word that is similar to the word unit in english language, the word 'squad' is a word that is similar to unit in the english language, but squad as a word is not the basis for an unit receiving special rules according to the rules in the BRB or any codex.

comparing the name of one datasheet to the name of another datasheet and then pointing out if the name of one somehow means "the unit" for rules such as "Units in this formation may reroll their to hit rolls in assault" which is what some people in this thread claims is said when a rule would say "datasheet name from this formation can reroll its to hit rolls in assault.

That's directly in opposition to what the rules say about Independent characters being part of the unit they're joined to for all rules purposes.

If you can claim that the datasheet name is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes, then all datasheet names are "units" for all references without a rules quote to say otherwise. Consdering there are no rules that are written which state a permission to count the name of datasheets used to buy units for formations as units for rules purposes. [yes the models from a datasheet make an unit on the tabletop, that does not mean rules references to the name of said data sheet is the same as saying "unit" because you can have an unit with models from different datasheets which are in different detachments...] It would be hard to find such a rule that states otherwise.

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.

Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000."

The army list entry for Assault Squad describes a unit of Assault Marines, no?

An Independent Character joined to a unit of Assault Marines counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, so once again a reference to "Assault Squad" is in fact describing a unit of Assault Marines; an Assault Squad unit.

It's pretty simple common sense that "Assault Squads" refers to the unit made up of that army list entry, thus "Assault Squads" means "units made up of Assault Squad army list entry".

the army list entry for assault marines describes the following unit profiles:
space marine
sgt
vet sgt

any IC can join that unit and count as an unit of Space Marines.


"assault squads" refers to the datasheet assault squad, which has models purchased from it per the datasheet to fulfill requirements for a detachment/formation.

the special rule does not refer to their unit, so it can only mean the models purchased from the assault squad.

The IC never gets the FTFTTB special rule. Because Special Rules cannot be conferred to an IC when joining a unit unless specifically stated. But the IC joining the unit doesn't stop it being an Assault Squad, which as an Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Formation gets the benefit of being able to charge due to the special rule.

If FTFTTB said 'models with this special rule can assault' then it would be clear that the IC cannot assault. However it says that an Assault Squad can. That doesn't ever require an IC to have the rule. It can join the unit without the rule and still benefit from the effects of it permitting the unit to assault, not individual models with that rule.

can't believe people are arguing over this 20 pages as well.

It's obvious you can't attach an Ic and magically get the unit special rules with out permission.

This doesn't need an faq or a TO ruling.

AlexRae wrote:
The IC never gets the FTFTTB special rule. Because Special Rules cannot be conferred to an IC when joining a unit unless specifically stated. But the IC joining the unit doesn't stop it being an Assault Squad, which as an Assault Squad in the Skyhammer Formation gets the benefit of being able to charge due to the special rule.

If FTFTTB said 'models with this special rule can assault' then it would be clear that the IC cannot assault. However it says that an Assault Squad can. That doesn't ever require an IC to have the rule. It can join the unit without the rule and still benefit from the effects of it permitting the unit to assault, not individual models with that rule.

while you are correct that it does not say that "models with this rule can do this"

It does specify the squad, and only certain models are actually from the squad.

the squad is not the same as the unit when an IC is attached, since now there is a model that is not from the assault squad in the unit.

and of course, for the special rule to affect the IC [since they IC does not have the special rule] we are told it has to state it affects the unit. There is no RAW statement that it affects the unit, so we cannot say that it does affect the unit.

Models from the assault squad can be an unit.

But that does not mean that saying assault squad is the same as saying "the unit" for the purpose of special rules, which requires it to say that it is a rule for a unit.

EDIT- someone earlier in the thread asked for an example of special rules which call out they affect an attached IC. Off the top of my head many of the new chapter tactics rules specify they affect "the unit from the formation, along with any attached IC"

If it said Assault Squad unit, would you accept it?

blaktoof wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
no.

its disingenuous to say that the name of a unit is the say as the word "the unit" for rules.

So you're saying that when a rule states it applies to "Assault Squads" it in fact does not apply to the Assault Squad as a unit? What does it refer to then?

The example is not worded differently. The only difference is the word warboss is not a word that is similar to the word unit in english language, the word 'squad' is a word that is similar to unit in the english language, but squad as a word is not the basis for an unit receiving special rules according to the rules in the BRB or any codex.

comparing the name of one datasheet to the name of another datasheet and then pointing out if the name of one somehow means "the unit" for rules such as "Units in this formation may reroll their to hit rolls in assault" which is what some people in this thread claims is said when a rule would say "datasheet name from this formation can reroll its to hit rolls in assault.

That's directly in opposition to what the rules say about Independent characters being part of the unit they're joined to for all rules purposes.

If you can claim that the datasheet name is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes, then all datasheet names are "units" for all references without a rules quote to say otherwise. Consdering there are no rules that are written which state a permission to count the name of datasheets used to buy units for formations as units for rules purposes. [yes the models from a datasheet make an unit on the tabletop, that does not mean rules references to the name of said data sheet is the same as saying "unit" because you can have an unit with models from different datasheets which are in different detachments...] It would be hard to find such a rule that states otherwise.

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.

Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000."

The army list entry for Assault Squad describes a unit of Assault Marines, no?

An Independent Character joined to a unit of Assault Marines counts as part of that unit for all rules purposes, so once again a reference to "Assault Squad" is in fact describing a unit of Assault Marines; an Assault Squad unit.

It's pretty simple common sense that "Assault Squads" refers to the unit made up of that army list entry, thus "Assault Squads" means "units made up of Assault Squad army list entry".

the army list entry for assault marines describes the following unit profiles:
space marine
sgt
vet sgt

any IC can join that unit and count as an unit of Space Marines.


"assault squads" refers to the datasheet assault squad, which has models purchased from it per the datasheet to fulfill requirements for a detachment/formation.

the special rule does not refer to their unit, so it can only mean the models purchased from the assault squad.

Have you ever even looked at a "Forces of the x" section in a codex before?

It specifically says "Unit Name" for the name given on the datasheet. Assault Squad is the name of the unit

It then goes on to describe the "Unit Composition" portion, which is the number and type of models that make up the unit.

What you're suggesting is just plain wrong.

An Assault Squad unit is composed of four Space Marines and a Space Marine Sergeant. It is not a Space Marine (in reference to the model profile given; obviously it is a unit of the Space Marines faction) unit any more than it is a Space Marine Sergeant unit.

Sunhero wrote:It's obvious you can't attach an Ic and magically get the unit special rules with out permission.

Correct. The real questions being asked in this thread are:
"What defines that permission?"
"Is a unit that is referenced by name still referenced by that name when an IC joins it, or does it cease being able to be referenced by that name?"
"Is a rule that references a unit by name, only considering the models listed in the datasheet/unit entry, or does it include all models that may have joined?"

For some, the permission question requires that a rule have the full text of the Stubborn rule in order to affect both IC and Unit together. For others, the permission is granted when the rule affects the unit as a whole.

For the second question, some believe that the unit can no longer be referenced by name if an IC joins it, so the IC destroys the ability to be referenced by name. For others, they believe that the name of the unit remains when the IC joins it, because it becomes part of the unit for all rule purposes (not part of the datasheet, though).

For the third question, some believe that if rule references a unit by name, it is only speaking of those models on the unit's datasheet, and so ICs are ignored. Others believe that when a unit is referenced by name, it is referencing the unit as it exists in the game, including the joined models of any ICs in question.

blaktoof wrote:while you are correct that it does not say that "models with this rule can do this"

It does specify the squad, and only certain models are actually from the squad.

the squad is not the same as the unit when an IC is attached, since now there is a model that is not from the assault squad in the unit.

Again, for the umpteenth time, provide a rules quote to support this. You have yet to provide a single rule to support this claim. Either support it with RAW, or be honest to yourself and others and drop it.

Link to ITC ruling please? Can't find it on their website FAQ or google search, didn't hear it in podcast either.

It's okay to admit you're wrong blaktoof.

Gmaleron and Kanluwen have already de facto (argument from exhaustion?)

If you're concerned by the balance issue, remember, you can always decline games.

...

It seems that the only reasonable counter-argument the opposition can muster so far is 'ITC banned it, so it must be wrong'

I declare the debate over.

Although that is the debate about RaW, which i have always agreed to;

It does not mean i am against this ICs conference in an "Intended" or "HIWPI" way.
ICs *should* not benefit from the Skyhammer Formation Bonuses. (Even if the Rules say they do)

blaktoof, does that mean if I attach a SM Captain to an Imperial Guard blob squad, it is no longer an Imperial Guard unit?

culsandar wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
ITC ruled against IC assaulting or even attaching to the unit formation and most likely NOVA also.

I'm happy... If people want to play friendly casual games allowing IC to charge T1 then go at it!

Which means nothing, because they blatantly change rules to fit their whim all the time.

Glad the East Coast doesn't give two about the ITC's rulings.

Except itc and nova(east coast) both said they didn't change the rules but that is how the rule works.
This is the same stance as your local gw store manager.

As much as you like to claim everyone is wrong except you. You are wrong and if you decide to play it your way then you are simply house ruling it differently so you can cheat your opponent.

Funnily enough the only special characters that can use this need to deepstrike. This is only a space marine codex formation, models like shriek can't even join them since the rules of infiltrate forbid it. So what broken combo are you trying to force against your opponent.

Careful, if you feel as though joining an ic with this formation is against the rules and try to voice an arguwment, your post will get deleted as mine apparently has.

Your posts added nothing to the conversation, and just insulted others. It's likely that is why they got removed. Unless you are suggesting the mods are biased ?

Gungo - it has been proven, repeatedly, that your stance is the houserule. You continually insist this is sm players shoving it down others throats, and you've been asked to desist, as that is breaching the forum tenets

Your position is debunked.

How is that your decision to make that his view is debunked? This is a debate. He has provided rules as have you. He has a different opinion than you based off of rules and facts. Don't "insult" people. Ignorant.

Except the rules presented by gungo have been debunked. The position. That the IC isn't a member of the unit, is false. The position that assault squad is somehow NOT a unit has been proven false.

Every position that says this does not work has been proven, using relevant rules, to be false.

Who am I? No one, however when the same debunked circle of arguments is presented over and over, with an inability for one side to answer except to say "it was houseruld by a to so its fine" then it isn't a persuasive argument.

Hell, they tried the appeal to authority "my GW manager said so". Because, as we all know, GW managers are universal in their deep,understanding of the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the rules presented by gungo have been debunked. The position. That the IC isn't a member of the unit, is false. The position that assault squad is somehow NOT a unit has been proven false.

Every position that says this does not work has been proven, using relevant rules, to be false.

Who am I? No one, however when the same debunked circle of arguments is presented over and over, with an inability for one side to answer except to say "it was houseruld by a to so its fine" then it isn't a persuasive argument.

Hell, they tried the appeal to authority "my GW manager said so". Because, as we all know, GW managers are universal in their deep,understanding of the game.

You saying its debunked still hasn't made it debunked. I'm sorry the majority of people don't agree with your theory. That still doesn't make you right.
No where did I say an ic can't form a single unit with another unit. The rules are clear they are considered a single unit for rules purposes. However the special rules never state they target this unit.
They state they target an assault Squads purchased in this formation.
Your codex clearly shows what an assault squad entails and it does not include independent characters.
This is again your opinion and was never debunked.
You never provide a single rule showing this.
The independent character is neither an assault squad, purchased as part of this formation or able to benefi from special rules that target other formations.
No model can ever be considered part of any formation that it was not purchase for.

Your opinion on these stances are well documented as you continue to scream constantly on multiple websites how your opinion is somehow more valid but it isn't and everyone who makes decisions in major tournaments on rules simply doesn't agree with your house rules or stance on this. I will not be playing by your house rules and since every tournament I play in either on the east coast or west coast follows nova or itc and they both are that ic can't benefit from these rules then your opinion simply doesn't matter to me and many others who don't agree with your abusive ranting. Your opinion just doesn't matter anymore.

gungo wrote:

No where did I say an ic can't form a single unit with another unit. The rules are clear they are considered a single unit for rules purposes. However the special rules never state they target this unit.
They state they target an assault Squads purchased in this formation.
Your codex clearly shows what an assault squad entails and it does not include independent characters.
This is again your opinion and was never debunked.
You never provide a single rule showing this.
The independent character is neither an assault squad, purchased as part of this formation or able to benefi from special rules that target other formations.
No model can ever be considered part of any formation that it was not purchase for.

Can you provide rules to support this counter argument?

The IC becomes part of the unit, which means it becomes part of the Assault Squad.

There has been no rules presented or referenced that the unit either loses its name or has it changed when an IC joins it.

There have been no rules presented or referenced that indicate that the IC is to be treated as or be capable of being a separate unit while joined to another. In fact, the rules state otherwise.

There has been no suggestion that the IC becomes an assault squad any more than a Marine or Sergeant are an Assault Squad, just that, like the marines and sergeant, it is part of the Assault Squad.

A model cannot be a belong to two detachments, true, except for when in the Primary detachment, or a Gladius/Decurion/Battleforce. But we're not saying the belongs to the formation, nor its squads, just that it is a temporary member of the squad. There has been no restriction presented against that, provided that the IC is a Battle Brother, of course.

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

No where did I say an ic can't form a single unit with another unit. The rules are clear they are considered a single unit for rules purposes. However the special rules never state they target this unit.
They state they target an assault Squads purchased in this formation.
Your codex clearly shows what an assault squad entails and it does not include independent characters.
This is again your opinion and was never debunked.
You never provide a single rule showing this.
The independent character is neither an assault squad, purchased as part of this formation or able to benefi from special rules that target other formations.
No model can ever be considered part of any formation that it was not purchase for.

Can you provide rules to support this counter argument?

The IC becomes part of the unit, which means it becomes part of the Assault Squad.

There has been no rules presented or referenced that the unit either loses its name or has it changed when an IC joins it.

There have been no rules presented or referenced that indicate that the IC is to be treated as or be capable of being a separate unit while joined to another. In fact, the rules state otherwise.

There has been no suggestion that the IC becomes an assault squad any more than a Marine or Sergeant are an Assault Squad, just that, like the marines and sergeant, it is part of the Assault Squad.

A model cannot be a belong to two detachments, true, except for when in the Primary detachment, or a Gladius/Decurion/Battleforce. But we're not saying the belongs to the formation, nor its squads, just that it is a temporary member of the squad. There has been no restriction presented against that, provided that the IC is a Battle Brother, of course.

I can provide the act wording of this rule that never states unit or uses the wording every other shared special rules has that says "a unit with a model with this special rule". I can provide you with the sky hammer rule that states an assault squad purchased from this formation can choose to assault turn 1 or 2. I can provide you with your codex definition of assault squad by providing you with its dataslate. I can provide you with the rules for indeoendant characters and deepstrike that state they MUST roll a single reserve roll die. I can provide you with the independent character rule that states while they are considered a single unit for all rules and then specifically says the only exception is all special rules can not be shared unless the rule specifically states otherwise. I can provide you with the sky hammer formation that says this is a special rule and at no point specifically states otherwise. I can also provide you examples where a special rule is still able to target a specific special character that is attached to squad thus showing that specific special character retains thier original unit name and doesnt lose thier original unit identity just because it is considered a single unit for all rules purposes except special rules. I can show you the rule that states no model can be part of a formation it was not purchased for.

Just because you believe a minisotrium priest attached to a terminator squad is called a terminator squad for all special rules purposes does not make it so, the rules for independent characters specifically call out special rules to this exception which is why special rules can target individual units attached to other units even when they are considered one unit. Special rules are directly listed as the exception unless specifically allowed and nothing in the sky hammer formation is specifically allowing it.

I have seen the same 5 people on several websites including dakka, Warseer, b&c just harass anyone who doesn't agree with them and somehow except their theory that ic are allowed to benefit from formation rules that don't specifically target them and frankly I just don't care anymore.your opinion doesn't Effect me as I will not be playing anyone who wants to twist rules to their benefit and any tournament either on the east coast or west I play at follows itc and nova rules who both independently read the rules the same exact way as most people who claim this doesn't work are saying. The reason I play by itc rules is because when I go to a local club and run into that guy I don't have to deal with their incessant whining or rules arguing for most of the night. The itc does a great job of making universal decisions regarding questionable rules regardless if those rules benefit me or hurts me. So really your opinion on how you would play this formation doesn't affect me anymore.

gungo wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

No where did I say an ic can't form a single unit with another unit. The rules are clear they are considered a single unit for rules purposes. However the special rules never state they target this unit.
They state they target an assault Squads purchased in this formation.
Your codex clearly shows what an assault squad entails and it does not include independent characters.
This is again your opinion and was never debunked.
You never provide a single rule showing this.
The independent character is neither an assault squad, purchased as part of this formation or able to benefi from special rules that target other formations.
No model can ever be considered part of any formation that it was not purchase for.

Can you provide rules to support this counter argument?

The IC becomes part of the unit, which means it becomes part of the Assault Squad.

There has been no rules presented or referenced that the unit either loses its name or has it changed when an IC joins it.

There have been no rules presented or referenced that indicate that the IC is to be treated as or be capable of being a separate unit while joined to another. In fact, the rules state otherwise.

There has been no suggestion that the IC becomes an assault squad any more than a Marine or Sergeant are an Assault Squad, just that, like the marines and sergeant, it is part of the Assault Squad.

A model cannot be a belong to two detachments, true, except for when in the Primary detachment, or a Gladius/Decurion/Battleforce. But we're not saying the belongs to the formation, nor its squads, just that it is a temporary member of the squad. There has been no restriction presented against that, provided that the IC is a Battle Brother, of course.

I can provide the act wording of this rule that never states unit or uses the wording every other shared special rules has that says "a unit with a model with this special rule". I can provide you with the sky hammer rule that states an assault squad purchased from this formation can choose to assault turn 1 or 2. I can provide you with your codex definition of assault squad by providing you with its dataslate. I can provide you with the rules for indeoendant characters and deepstrike that state they MUST roll a single reserve roll die. I can provide you with the independent character rule that states while they are considered a single unit for all rules and then specifically says the only exception is all special rules can not be shared unless the rule specifically states otherwise. I can provide you with the sky hammer formation that says this is a special rule and at no point specifically states otherwise. I can also provide you examples where a special rule is still able to target a specific special character that is attached to squad thus showing that specific special character retains thier original unit name and doesnt lose thier original unit identity just because it is considered a single unit for all rules purposes except special rules. I can show you the rule that states no model can be part of a formation it was not purchased for.

Just because you believe a minisotrium priest attached to a terminator squad is called a terminator squad for all special rules purposes does not make it so, the rules for independent characters specifically call out special rules to this exception which is why special rules can target individual units attached to other units even when they are considered one unit. Special rules are directly listed as the exception unless specifically allowed and nothing in the sky hammer formation is specifically allowing it.

I have seen the same 5 people on several websites including dakka, Warseer, b&c just harass anyone who doesn't agree with them and somehow except their theory that ic are allowed to benefit from formation rules that don't specifically target them and frankly I just don't care anymore.your opinion doesn't Effect me as I will not be playing anyone who wants to twist rules to their benefit and any tournament either on the east coast or west I play at follows itc and nova rules who both independently read the rules the same exact way as most people who claim this doesn't work are saying. The reason I play by itc rules is because when I go to a local club and run into that guy I don't have to deal with their incessant whining or rules arguing for most of the night. The itc does a great job of making universal decisions regarding questionable rules regardless if those rules benefit me or hurts me. So really your opinion on how you would play this formation doesn't affect me anymore.

Enjoy those houserules bro, glad you like them. You done raving about them in a YMDC tho?

gungo - if I attach an IC to a Tactical Squad, what unit is it? If your answer is anything other than Tactical Squad, I'm going to need you to cite a rule.

Can you provide a rule that proves the effect from FtFttB that allows charging from Deep Strike is not the same as an Apothecary's nartheciun, or a unit Banner?

SJ

gungo wrote:
I can provide the act wording of this rule that never states unit or uses the wording every other shared special rules has that says "a unit with a model with this special rule".

No, you can't. Because not every other shared special rule says "a unit with a model with this special rule". Now, most of the Universal ones do start with this, true. They have to since it has to swing both ways, either the IC affecting the unit with it or the unit affecting the IC with it. But special rules on a datasheet do not have to be general, and only address the unit or the models.

But here's several problems with this concept:
1) "A unit with a model with this special rule" has never been defined as the only phrase for this to work. It is an assumption that it is on several people's parts.
2) We already know 6 units full of models from the Skyhammer Formation start deployment with these rules, allowing for the "unit with a model" to be covered inherently. (True, the Drop Pods won't be affected by 3 of them, but that's hardly the point). That's a minimum of 22 models. Can you show me one that doesn't have that rule?
3) Counter-Attack has this exact same phrase, but will not affect an IC in the same unit since the affect only applies to the models with this special rule.
4) The rules still address units, either in general like the first, or specifically by name for the other 3.

gungo wrote:
I can provide you with the sky hammer rule that states an assault squad purchased from this formation can choose to assault turn 1 or 2.

Not specifically, only generally. That specific rule only states units in general, since it has to include the two Drop Pods in the rule as well otherwise the Devastator squads would be left behind.

gungo wrote:
I can provide you with your codex definition of assault squad by providing you with its dataslate.

Technically, it is "datasheet", but that is quibbling. Nor does that actually counter any point.

gungo wrote:
I can provide you with the rules for indeoendant characters and deepstrike that state they MUST roll a single reserve roll die.

Not both together. The IC rules never mention Deep Strike. And Deep Strike doesn't care about Independent Characters specifically. Deep Strike only cares that every model in the unit has the rule, just like Fleet.

The actual rule for rolling for Reserve with a single die roll is in the Reserves rules. And that roll affects the entire unit, Independent Characters are included in that roll.

gungo wrote:
I can provide you with the independent character rule that states while they are considered a single unit for all rules and then specifically says the only exception is all special rules can not be shared unless the rule specifically states otherwise.

Never actually in contention. What is in contention is the HOW. What has been are assumptions, both in liberal interpretation and conservative. The problem with the conservative interpretation, though, has already been stated above.

gungo wrote:
I can also provide you examples where a special rule is still able to target a specific special character that is attached to squad thus showing that specific special character retains thier original unit name and doesnt lose thier original unit identity just because it is considered a single unit for all rules purposes except special rules.

If you can show it, why haven't you? No one else has, and it has been asked for repeatedly.

By this interpretation, I can shoot at the IC joined to the unit, since it does not lose its unit identity. By this interpretation, an IC cannot make a Look Out, Sir! roll since it requires another model from the same unit. By this interpretation, an IC can shoot at a different target from a unit it has joined since it is done unit by unit.

But instead, the IC rules do not state that they retain their original unit identity while joined to a unit, they count as being part of the unit for all rules purposes. So, I cannot shoot an IC independently of the unit it has joined. An IC can make a Look Out, Sir! roll and divert the Wound to another model in the same unit. An IC must shoot at the same target as the unit it has joined (barring other special rules like Split Fire).

gungo wrote:
I can show you the rule that states no model can be part of a formation it was not purchased for.

Again, show it, prove it, at least reference where to look for this rule.

The Formation rules that I have read so far have stated NOTHING in regards to this. They detail that a Formation is a Detachment, and from there is a rule in detachments that a model cannot BELONG to more than one detachment (barring specific exceptions like Primary, Gladius, etc), but that does not mean an IC cannot join and become part of a Formation they were not purchased with. Indeed, the Levels of Alliance rules state otherwise when Battle Brothers are involved.

gungo wrote:
Just because you believe a minisotrium priest attached to a terminator squad is called a terminator squad for all special rules purposes does not make it so, the rules for independent characters specifically call out special rules to this exception which is why special rules can target individual units attached to other units even when they are considered one unit. Special rules are directly listed as the exception unless specifically allowed and nothing in the sky hammer formation is specifically allowing it.

Where is this rule? I have not read it anywhere in 3 Editions of rules.

There is the Precisions Shot rule which allows you to select MODELS in the unit to specifically Wound, but there are no rules regarding a "unit within a unit".

There are also other rules that also state:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly."

And guess what, the Special rules for this Formation target units with effects, and target nothing else. So, we do not have permission to exclude an Independent Character when an effect targets the unit.

Let's look at the Blind rule and see if it matches the stipulation that Stubbron has:
"Any unit hit by one or more models or weapons with this special rule must take an Initiative test at the end of the current phase. If the test is passed, all is well – a shouted warning has caused the warriors to avert their gaze. If the Initiative test is failed, all models in the unit are reduced to Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 1 until the end of their next turn. Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test. Any model that does not have an Initiative characteristic (for example, non-Walker vehicles, buildings etc.) is unaffected by this special rule."

Hmm, doesn't seem to match up with what your previous assumptions about Special Rules being able to affect both base unit and joined Independent Characters, now does it?

gungo wrote:
I have seen the same 5 people on several websites including dakka, Warseer, b&c just harass anyone who doesn't agree with them and somehow except their theory that ic are allowed to benefit from formation rules that don't specifically target them and frankly I just don't care anymore.your opinion doesn't Effect me as I will not be playing anyone who wants to twist rules to their benefit and any tournament either on the east coast or west I play at follows itc and nova rules who both independently read the rules the same exact way as most people who claim this doesn't work are saying. The reason I play by itc rules is because when I go to a local club and run into that guy I don't have to deal with their incessant whining or rules arguing for most of the night. The itc does a great job of making universal decisions regarding questionable rules regardless if those rules benefit me or hurts me. So really your opinion on how you would play this formation doesn't affect me anymore.

I didn't know that providing an opposing opinion or proving your case wrong is classed as harassment. Going by that example, why are you harassing us here? You are providing an opposing opinion. Should I report you for harassment for that?

"All the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l

This rule flat out states that formation special rules such as sky hammer formstion are given to units before deployment. And no unit can belong to more then one detachment.

Since sky hammer is a command benefit given before deployment.
And an independent character can never join a unit before deployment.
There is no way they can gain any special rules from a formstion after deployment unless those special rules specifically state that independent character attached to that unit gains those special rules per the rules of independant characters.

gungo wrote:
"All the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l

This rule flat out states that formation special rules such as sky hammer formstion are given to units before deployment. And no unit can belong to more then one detachment.

Since sky hammer is a command benefit given before deployment.
And an independent character can never join a unit before deployment.
There is no way they can gain any special rules from a formstion after deployment unless those special rules specifically state that independent character attached to that unit gains those special rules per the rules of indeed ant characters.

You keep bringing up that the IC cannot have the special rule. Then you argue against it as if it were our position. Let me try this once more.

The IC does not gain the special rule FtfttB. He never has the rule. Please stop arguing against him having the rule as no one is claiming he has the rule.