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.

So, the title speaks for itself.

No, Jet Pack Infantry have Relentless, so they can fire at normal ballistic skill, a Drone controller on a commander is really good with them.

Jet Pack Units have Relentless. Jet Pack Models... may be a different story depending on who you talk to.

Charistoph wrote:
Jet Pack Units have Relentless. Jet Pack Models... may be a different story depending on who you talk to.

Contrary to what they are called, Models have a Unit Type. I recommend rereading the BRB.

Unit Types wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Jet Pack Units have Relentless. Jet Pack Models... may be a different story depending on who you talk to.

Contrary to what they are called, Models have a Unit Type. I recommend rereading the BRB.

Unit Types wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into

Correct. And the rules for Jet Pack unit types state, "Jet Pack units have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules.", not models. When a unit type rules are directed at a model, they specify the model, and not the unit.

Most people are just fine with ignoring the rules at this point, and say the models get it, though.

Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Jet Pack Units have Relentless. Jet Pack Models... may be a different story depending on who you talk to.

Contrary to what they are called, Models have a Unit Type. I recommend rereading the BRB.

Unit Types wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into

Correct. And the rules for Jet Pack unit types state, "Jet Pack units have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules.", not models. When a unit type rules are directed at a model, they specify the model, and not the unit.

Most people are just fine with ignoring the rules at this point, and say the models get it, though.

Jet Pack Units are a Unit Type that apply to models that are either Jet Pack Infantry or Jet Pack Monstrous Creatures. It is explained that it follows the rules like a Jump Unit.

Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

As with Jump units, 'Jet Pack' is not a classification in and of itself.

If your argument is that it only applies to the unit, Games Workshop has never clarified how a mixed unit type works, such as a Riptide being a mix of Monstrous Creature and Infantry, and can be equally be argued either way that simply having a model with the Jet Pack Unit Type grants the unit as being a 'Jet Pack unit'.

That said, I would recommend taking a break, inserting such arguments into a much simpler about someone trying to learn the game can cause some problems, and would be better if you made your own thread about it.

Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Jet Pack Units have Relentless. Jet Pack Models... may be a different story depending on who you talk to.

Contrary to what they are called, Models have a Unit Type. I recommend rereading the BRB.

Unit Types wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into

Correct. And the rules for Jet Pack unit types state, "Jet Pack units have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules.", not models. When a unit type rules are directed at a model, they specify the model, and not the unit.

Most people are just fine with ignoring the rules at this point, and say the models get it, though.

In fairness, the 'Unit Types' section does not at some point in its opening paragraphs, "In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type catergory a model falls into..."

I think it's fair to state therefore in this case the reference to units is, as you mentioned elsewhere, a matter of Games Workshop's shorthand, and refers to Jump unit types

If for some stupid reason you attached an ethereal to the unit of marker drones you wouldn't be able to since the whole unit would no longer be all jet inf. but since a commander is jet inf and the drones are jet inf they still form and entirely jet inf unit.

Nilok wrote:
Jet Pack Units are a Unit Type that apply to models that are either Jet Pack Infantry or Jet Pack Monstrous Creatures. It is explained that it follows the rules like a Jump Unit.

Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

As with Jump units, 'Jet Pack' is not a classification in and of itself.

If your argument is that it only applies to the unit, Games Workshop has never clarified how a mixed unit type works, such as a Riptide being a mix of Monstrous Creature and Infantry, and can be equally be argued either way that simply having a model with the Jet Pack Unit Type grants the unit as being a 'Jet Pack unit'.

And yet, the term "unit" is not redefined to "unit type" in this section, it is only an assumption. A valid assumption that most will agree to (including myself), but an assumption, nonetheless.

Nilok wrote:That said, I would recommend taking a break, inserting such arguments into a much simpler about someone trying to learn the game can cause some problems, and would be better if you made your own thread about it.

This forum is about how the Rules Are Written. I've stated how they've been Written, and then stated how most people I've met preferred to play it.

I didn't know we were supposed to hold people's hands and not warn them about the pitfalls in the rules.

Mr. Shine wrote:
Contrary to what they are called, Models have a Unit Type. I recommend rereading the BRB.

Unit Types wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into

Correct. And the rules for Jet Pack unit types state, "Jet Pack units have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules.", not models. When a unit type rules are directed at a model, they specify the model, and not the unit.

Most people are just fine with ignoring the rules at this point, and say the models get it, though.

Charistoph wrote:

This forum is about how the Rules Are Written. I've stated how they've been Written, and then stated how most people I've met preferred to play it.

No, it is not. It is "You Make Da Call", and that includes RAI and HIWPI. If you think this forum is only for RAW, you are in the wrong place.

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.
[/quote

Can someone please explain how a model in a unit is not affected by that units special rules?

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

This forum is about how the Rules Are Written. I've stated how they've been Written, and then stated how most people I've met preferred to play it.

No, it is not. It is "You Make Da Call", and that includes RAI and HIWPI. If you think this forum is only for RAW, you are in the wrong place.

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

And I differentiated the two, which others did not.

Now, do you really want to make this an unnecessary argument, or were you just trying to make this personal?

Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

This forum is about how the Rules Are Written. I've stated how they've been Written, and then stated how most people I've met preferred to play it.

No, it is not. It is "You Make Da Call", and that includes RAI and HIWPI. If you think this forum is only for RAW, you are in the wrong place.

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

And I differentiated the two, which others did not.

Now, do you really want to make this an unnecessary argument, or were you just trying to make this personal?

No, what you stated had nothing to do about the rules, you stated that this forum is for RAW, which is not only the case. It is about the rules, as they are written, as they work, and how they should be played. By stating that "this forum is about how the Rules are Written" you are disregarding anyone else's argument that is not RAW, which is not okay.

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

This forum is about how the Rules Are Written. I've stated how they've been Written, and then stated how most people I've met preferred to play it.

No, it is not. It is "You Make Da Call", and that includes RAI and HIWPI. If you think this forum is only for RAW, you are in the wrong place.

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

And I differentiated the two, which others did not.

Now, do you really want to make this an unnecessary argument, or were you just trying to make this personal?

No, what you stated had nothing to do about the rules, you stated that this forum is for RAW, which is not only the case. It is about the rules, as they are written, as they work, and how they should be played. By stating that "this forum is about how the Rules are Written" you are disregarding anyone else's argument that is not RAW, which is not okay.

Considering that you completely ignored what else that was written before what you quoted, it would be easy to make such an assumption. You've also ignored what else I wrote.

What I initially said was that the rules stated that the UNITS have the rule, not the models. And then stated that most people ignored that idiosyncrasy. You're the one who started talking about:

 Nilok wrote:
That said, I would recommend taking a break, inserting such arguments into a much simpler about someone trying to learn the game can cause some problems, and would be better if you made your own thread about it.

Either I am wrong about what I wrote, or I am not. You have chosen not to recognize that what I wrote is correct, but intimating that the only reason I did so was to start an argument.

Which in turn means, that you are making an unnecessary argument or making this personal.

Charistoph wrote:

What I initially said was that the rules stated that the UNITS have the rule, not the models. And then stated that most people ignored that idiosyncrasy. You're the one who started talking about:

UNIT TYPE wrote:In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model fall into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex or Army List Entry.

JUMP UNITS wrote:Jump units are equipped with jump pack, wings, teleport devices, or other means of moving quickly over short distances.

JUMP UNITS wrote:Indeed, a Jump unit can always choose to move as a normal model of their type if they wish.

JUMP UNITS: SPECIAL RULES wrote:Jump units have the...

When the word "unit" comes directly after a unit type name (Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Bike, Artillery, Jump, Jet Pack, it is specifically referring to the "unit type" and not the collection of models called a "unit". In fact, we are specifically told that models have a unit type, but we are never given permission for units to have a unit type ironically.
Yes, it is confusing, the lack of editors at Games Workshop is why YMDC exists.

There are people who really think an Ethereal attached to a drone squadron would stop those drones to JSJ?

Nilok: i was just about to state something very similar.

While "unit" is a defined term it is often used in the more general sense. Unit types rules, and the term psyker unit have little to nothing to do with the defined term.

But, of course, people like to see that word in a sentence and misapply the defined term.

Models have a unit type(non-term) that is designated by their profile in the unit entry(related to term), and then in play we have units that are exactly as defined.

The rules that define a pskyer unit also show that the term psyker unit is interchangeable with the term psyker.

In extension of your above rules quote: a non-jump infantry ic in a jump unit creates a black-hole in the rules under the misapplication. If there is a non-jump ic, the unit must always jump in the movement phase, even though individual models in a unit(term) are free to decide their own movement.

In reality you can have half you ji unit jump and the other half walk(so long as you are not falling back, but that is forced movement and clearly defined)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Nilok: i was just about to state something very similar.

While "unit" is a defined term it is often used in the more general sense. Unit types rules, and the term psyker unit have little to nothing to do with the defined term.

But, of course, people like to see that word in a sentence and misapply the defined term.

Models have a unit type(non-term) that is designated by their profile in the unit entry(related to term), and then in play we have units that are exactly as defined.

The rules that define a pskyer unit also show that the term psyker unit is interchangeable with the term psyker.

In extension of your above rules quote: a non-jump infantry ic in a jump unit creates a black-hole in the rules under the misapplication. If there is a non-jump ic, the unit must always jump in the movement phase, even though individual models in a unit(term) are free to decide their own movement.

In reality you can have half you ji unit jump and the other half walk(so long as you are not falling back, but that is forced movement and clearly defined)

This is not about misapplying a defined term. It's about the term not being redefined before or while using it in a (justfiably assumed) different manner. And that is how it is written.

And no, a non-Jump IC in a Jump unit would actually prevent any use of Jump, as all models in the unit have to use the same movement type.

So, RAW states Jet Pack units get Relentless, not models. Almost everyone still plays it as model, though, so it isn't a big issue.

So assault cannons are assault now?

How about heavy flamers are they heavy?

A defined term used in another context is not that defined term.

A "unit type" has nothing to do with a "unit" similarly a "jetpack unit" has nothing to do with the whole unit comprised of them and possible other unit types.

On the battlefield a "unit" could be made with 6 infantry unit models, 1 jump infantry unit model, 1 bike unit model, and just for giggles lets add a jetpack cavalry unit model. The whole thing is simply a unit, all those different unit types each follow their own rules based on their unit types. Oh, and lets just add the psyker special rule to any one of those models also making that model a "psyker unit(or just plain psyker; again, interchangeable terms)".

So now we have 1 unit, made of several different unit types and they are not able to be targeted seperately, and must remain in coherency(although they are likely to be almost all ics who can leave the unit)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So assault cannons are assault now?

How about heavy flamers are they heavy?

A defined term used in another context is not that defined term.

A poor rejoinder since the Types of a weapon are not necessarily defined by the name, nor defined as such.

A "unit type" has nothing to do with a "unit" similarly a "jetpack unit" has nothing to do with the whole unit comprised of them and possible other unit types.

On the battlefield a "unit" could be made with 6 infantry unit models, 1 jump infantry unit model, 1 bike unit model, and just for giggles lets add a jetpack cavalry unit model. The whole thing is simply a unit, all those different unit types each follow their own rules based on their unit types. Oh, and lets just add the psyker special rule to any one of those models also making that model a "psyker unit(or just plain psyker; again, interchangeable terms)".

So now we have 1 unit, made of several different unit types and they are not able to be targeted seperately, and must remain in coherency(although they are likely to be almost all ics who can leave the unit)

As I have said, repeatedly now, how people run it is not how it is written. And I have stated, that I don't really take it that seriously myself.

Now, either actually prove the definition of unit was changed for this, and not "how it was meant to be taken", or let it drop.

What other fun can we have if we interpret the rules in this way....

Jet Pack units lose Bulky while they are joined by a non-jet pack model...

Trasvi wrote:
What other fun can we have if we interpret the rules in this way....

Jet Pack units lose Bulky while they are joined by a non-jet pack model...

Crisis with an Ethereal can enter a Devilfish!

:( Just checked. Unfortunately Crisis suits have Very Bulky in their basic rules.
But you could do it with Vespids or Drone squads in Tau.
More worryingly you could do it with other armies. The same idea/logic works for Jump Packs too...

Trasvi wrote:
:( Just checked. Unfortunately Crisis suits have Very Bulky in their basic rules.
But you could do it with Vespids or Drone squads in Tau.
More worryingly you could do it with other armies. The same idea/logic works for Jump Packs too...

I was being sarcastic, alongside your line of thought. But to think of it, you're right regarding the very bulky rule, my mistake.
But you can't put Vespid inside Devilfishes because they're jump units, and transports need specific clearance to allow such units inside them (Drones have their own exemption)

 Vector Strike wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
:( Just checked. Unfortunately Crisis suits have Very Bulky in their basic rules.
But you could do it with Vespids or Drone squads in Tau.
More worryingly you could do it with other armies. The same idea/logic works for Jump Packs too...

I was being sarcastic, alongside your line of thought. But to think of it, you're right regarding the very bulky rule, my mistake.
But you can't put Vespid inside Devilfishes because they're jump units, and transports need specific clearance to allow such units inside them (Drones have their own exemption)

Let's not get two threads caught in this mess, if you want to read the arguments for and against that for RAW, not RAI or HIWPI, check the Praetorian thead.

 Nilok wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
:( Just checked. Unfortunately Crisis suits have Very Bulky in their basic rules.
But you could do it with Vespids or Drone squads in Tau.
More worryingly you could do it with other armies. The same idea/logic works for Jump Packs too...

I was being sarcastic, alongside your line of thought. But to think of it, you're right regarding the very bulky rule, my mistake.
But you can't put Vespid inside Devilfishes because they're jump units, and transports need specific clearance to allow such units inside them (Drones have their own exemption)

Let's not get two threads caught in this mess, if you want to read the arguments for and against that for RAW, not RAI or HIWPI, check the Praetorian thead.

That thread has nothing to do with what was being said here.

That thread is about a goofy bir of option spiralled into whether or not you can begin embarked.

This is about unit type vs unit(with a statement that adding an infantry unit type ic to a non-infantry type unit cancels out the unit type special rules/existence full-stop); and a unit made of entirely unit type jump infantry absolutely cannot embark in any transport(I will add mid-game here for your own edification).

So, anyways, you still cannot embark vespids with an ethereal in a devilfish because you can only embark infantry units and the resulting complete mess of garbage from those that want to apply "unit" to other terms that have that word contained simply has no type.

We have no idea what the type of a unit with mixed unit types are under that misapplied definition(thanks for breaking the game ones what look for buzzwords)

Now back on topic: my point about the names of weapons vs their rules was that a word or term defined in one area has nothing to do with that word being used in a different context(most often where other words are associated such a psyker or type). In english the phrases "jump infantry unit" is different from "unit of jump infantry". In base English the first is a set made entirely of jump infantry, the second is a sub-set of jump infantry within a whole. In rules-english it goes the opposite way: the first is the subset(a defined term, even when extrapolated from context), while the secon is a full set(unit as the defined term, but then given a full make-up of type by the remaining terms).

This duality in base english vs rules/legal- english is exactly why most people should never sign a contract without a lawyer reading it first.

I'm confused as feth right now!

Can somebody please explain why a unit having relentless, and models in that unit having relentless, are different in any way (excluding ICs)

Relentless is on a model-by model basis.

A armylist entry tells you what rules all(or some) models in the unit have.

Case in point: gunnery sgt harker is a model within a guard veteran squad who has relentless himself, a heavy bolter weapons team would still snapshot in the shooting phase if that model moved during movement(it does not have relentless).

A unit of lotd all have relentless per their entry, sticking an ic in that unit without relentless will not effect the legions relentless in any way.

Now, for this discussion, we have certain people who see the words: "jetpack unit" and focus on the word unit discounting the adjective jetpack, and then stating that "jetpack unit" has to be a group of models made entirely of jetpack for those rules to be applied. In other words; they are misreading "jetpack unit" as "unit of jetpacks" and therefore claiming only a unit of jetpacks have the bulky, relentless, and that other rule.

Gotcha. Thanks

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Now back on topic: my point about the names of weapons vs their rules was that a word or term defined in one area has nothing to do with that word being used in a different context(most often where other words are associated such a psyker or type). In english the phrases "jump infantry unit" is different from "unit of jump infantry". In base English the first is a set made entirely of jump infantry, the second is a sub-set of jump infantry within a whole. In rules-english it goes the opposite way: the first is the subset(a defined term, even when extrapolated from context), while the secon is a full set(unit as the defined term, but then given a full make-up of type by the remaining terms).

This duality in base english vs rules/legal- english is exactly why most people should never sign a contract without a lawyer reading it first.

Interesting point. Where can one reference the ruleset for the language regarding this?

One should also consider one simple fact in question on this, the people writing these things are not rules-lawyers, and are supposed to be writing for people who only know base english.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Now, for this discussion, we have certain people who see the words: "jetpack unit" and focus on the word unit discounting the adjective jetpack, and then stating that "jetpack unit" has to be a group of models made entirely of jetpack for those rules to be applied. In other words; they are misreading "jetpack unit" as "unit of jetpacks" and therefore claiming only a unit of jetpacks have the bulky, relentless, and that other rule.

Discounting would be a strong word, applying it via standard vernacular would be more appropriate.

It also doesn't help when just using the simple expediency that they used for every other unit type besides Jump and Jet Pack, i.e. models, would have saved everyone some time and grief for this.