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 blaktoof can you argue against any of my premises where I literally prove squad = unit...

nekooni wrote:
But all rules that only require one model in the unit to have the rule also state that as part of the rule. Which the Special Rules of the Skyhammer do not.

The point is that requiring one model in the unit to have the rule does not tell you who receives the benefit.

You're saying Stubborn tells us joined Independent Characters gain the benefit of the rule because the benefit is granted to the unit if at least one model in the unit has the rule.

I'm pointing out that for example First the Fire, then the Blade tells us joined Indepenent Characters gain the benefit of the rule because the benefit is granted to the unit if that unit is an Assault Squad.

See how what we're wanting to find out is who benefits, not how the benefit is triggered and that's the same in both examples?

blaktoof wrote:
the issue with the rules for this formation, and likely the reason ITC ruled that they do not carry over...

is that they are not unit rules. the rules for some reason, state they affect the squad. The squad being the models purchased from the datasheet "assault squad" since that is an "assault squad"

unfortunately squad =/= unit as unit has a specific meaning, and squad references a datasheet and the models you can get from it, not the the tabletop unit.

yeah argue blah blah, but the rule no where says the unit is affected. Not sure how its a unit rule in some peoples minds, if it does not affect the unit....

I am sure the people making the ITC faq also noticed that the rules are not specified as affecting the unit.

I'd refer you to the 'Datasheets' section of the Space Marines Codex, I think number 4 is specifically stated to be "unit name".

"Assault Squad" is the unit.

that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

blaktoof wrote:
that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

There are 0 relevant hits for "Captain unit", "Squad unit", "unit of Tactical", "unit of Assault" in the entire Codex: Adeptus Astartes. The entire codex uses "Tactical Squad" or "Captain" whenever talking about the unit. In the case of the Captain unit that lead some people to assume that you couldn't upgrade the Captain model of a Captain unit to a Chapter Master model and still use it in a Demi-Company (which asks for "1 Captain").

And the BRB also explains why it is legal:
Occasionally, a Force Organisation slot will not specify a Battlefield Role, in which case any type of unit can be taken, or it will specify a particular unit or units, in which case only those particular units may (or must) be taken.
Which for our topic means that yes, GW uses "Captain" instead of "Captain unit" and explicitly means the unit. Same for most other units.

Some folks here should seriously get off their "ITC is love, ITC is life" thing. The ITC does NOT "clarify" rules, they make up house rules. Some of them contradict RAW, some contradict RAI, some are just reinforcing both and some contradict both. But what they are not is "OH THIS IS HOW TO READ THE RULE!" - They're just someones take on how to balance the rules.

nekooni wrote:
Some folks here should seriously get off their "ITC is love, ITC is life" thing. The ITC does NOT "clarify" rules, they make up house rules. Some of them contradict RAW, some contradict RAI, some are just reinforcing both and some contradict both. But what they are not is "OH THIS IS HOW TO READ THE RULE!" - They're just someones take on how to balance the rules.

This. A thousand times, this. I guess some people just can't get the taste of it out of their mouth enough to avoid it spewing out at every rules discussion opportunity they get.

So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

It affects the Assault Squad, right?

Is the IC part of the Assault Squad?

 Happyjew wrote:
It affects the Assault Squad, right?

Is the IC part of the Assault Squad?

Yep but the RAW never states it affects the unit for any of the skyhammer rules.

IC is a model in the unit.

IC is not a model from the datasheet Assault Squad.

So again, why do you think it doesn't say Unit in the rule unlike all the many other rules that state they affect an Unit?

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

blaktoof, as usual you're not even responding to people's points. You're simply avoiding the question and ignoring others' points and re-stating your own opinion without actually providing any rules support for it.

You're the one out of bounds here.

blaktoof wrote:

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

How could I explain why GW does something? It's just that GW NEVER uses "unit of Assault Squad". Look at the Codex. It's right there, it always uses "Assault Squad" and never uses "unit of Assault Squad" or similar. The rules of the Skyhammer formation "target" the Devs and the ASMs specifically, so they use their normal wording of "Assault Squads" , just like in the codex.

Oh - and "every" special rule?

Amphibious: A Chimera treats all water features as open terrain when it moves.
Repair: If a Rhino is Immobilised, then in subsequent turns it can attempt to repair

Every formation rule?

The Will of the Omnissiah: The Techmarine and Techmarine Gunners from this
Formation have a +1 bonus when
Empyric Channelling: At the start of the Psychic phase, you can nominate one
Librarian from this Formation.
Data Lattice: As long as at least one Stormtalon from this Formation has not been
completely destroyed, the Formation’s Stormraven Gunship has the Strafing Run special
rule.
Fury of the Storm: When a Terminator Squad from this Formation arrives from Deep
Strike Reserve or disembarks from a Transport vehicle from this Formation for the first
time, all ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots they
can make until the end of the turn.

Every detachment rule?
RESTRICTIONS:
Scout Bike Squads in this Formation must be equipped with cluster
mines.
RESTRICTIONS:
The Command Squad must take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The Chaplain must join the Command Squad during deployment, and
cannot leave it during the course of the battle.

That's just some rules picked from the Inquisition and Astartes Codexes

*edit* To sum it up: GW uses "unit" when it's not clear what kind of unit the rule will affect. e.g. Deep Strike special rule affects many units, therefore the rule uses "unit". Specific rules that target just one unit - like the Amphibious rule for the Chimera - usually (not always) use the name of the unit instead.
A mix of this can be seen in the Fury of the Storm special rule: it targets a Terminator Squad (the unit) and later very precisely describes what the effect is: ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots. This also clearly affects ICs joined to the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
that statement is the basis of intent, not of the actual writing in the rules.

every rule that affects an unit states it affects an unit.

we can state they intended to say the unit is affected by stating the unit name of the datasheet, but the unit name of the datasheet is not an unit. This would also be a RAI argument with no actual rules as written to support that the unit name on a datasheet is the same as saying the unit on the tabletop.

This can be shown by purchasing a space marine captain, and joining it to a unit. If the space marine captain had a rule that specified "space marine captain" as in the unit name, saying it was a rule that somehow affected an unit without being told [a RAI argument] would leave you in a situation where the unit no longer exists, as the captain is joined to another unit and is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. In effect the rule would no longer effect the model purchased from that datasheet. Which makes no sense.

the bottom line is, the unit name of a datasheet is not the same as saying "the unit gets to do x if it has this rule". which is the format and RAW for all rules that affect units, which this rule does not contain in any form. Which is why the ITC faq spells out plainly ICs cannot benefit.

I'm sorry, this does not fly at all.

If this is as you say, then the Assault Squads cannot charge after arriving from Deep Strike, joined IC or not, since there are no Assault Squads to be doing that. If I take fire from a Skyhammer Devastator Squad, I don't have to take a Leadership Test on 3D6, since no such thing exists. Heck, I don't even have to worry about being HIT by it. Heck, they aren't allowed to Deep Strike at all, since only units can Deep Strike.[/sarcasm]

I don't remember the Datasheet Legend saying anything about "Datasheet Name", it only lists "Unit Name". Units target units. Units Deep Strike. Units Charge. Units are put in Reserve. Therefore, the Skyhammer Formation rules can only be referring to units, some of them by name.


Sorry for the delay on this next response:

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn and objective secured ect don't fundamentally change the way in which the model moves and interacts on the table.

And this is determination of the RAW, how? A consideration for balance, yes. General RAW Legality, no.

 Konrax wrote:
Just because you put a librian on bike with a terminator squad doesn't mean it can deep strike now.

And at what point did you think I suggested it could? The Librarian is still considered part of the unit for determining if the unit can Deep Strike, and would Deep Strike with the unit if it could.

 Konrax wrote:
Same with an ic with jump pack joining a marine squad, they don't get to reroll charges now just because one guy has a jump pack.

Considering the entire unit has to use the same movement mode, of course. Just as much as if a non-Jump IC joined a Jump unit.

 Konrax wrote:
Rules that only a single model / character needs to give it to the entire unit they join specifically say only one model needs it.

Well, yeah, because that's what they say.

However, none of the Skyhammer Formation rules fall under this category, so why bring this up?

 Konrax wrote:
The formation has specific rules for how the units can deploy from reserves and what they can do after, and makes no mention to these rules applying to any other unit that joins.

Good thing that the units aren't joining the Formation. ICs are joining units in the Formation and counting as being members of that unit for all rules purposes.

 Konrax wrote:
Based on the assumption that it doesn't blanket grant the rules to another character that joins, if a model joins without that rule you need to default to the standard deployment options granted by that character and not the formation.

The Skyhammer Formation rules grant benefits to the units, just like Stubborn does and doesn't specify any models or required possession. The joined IC is part of the unit. So, the IC benefits along with any Marine, Sergeant, or Veteran Sergeant.

 Konrax wrote:
You could say mix Belial in for the no scatter deep strike but he has no rule that guarantees he can come in on any particular turn or assault after deep striking...

Because these rules only apply to the units mentioned in the formation, and that it doesn't specifically say that the rules apply to any independent characters that join the unit would also gain it, I would say it is a no.

If I shoot at a Skyhammer Assault Squad with a joined Belial, could I wound Belial? If that unit ever charges, does Belial Charge?

If so, then why is he not part of the unit when it goes to charge after arriving from Deep Strike Reserves?

 Konrax wrote:
Like I said earlier abilities that transfer to the squad and vice versa specifically say it only requires a single model with this rule for the unit to perform x.

That is never actually stated as a rule requirement. The rule states that the example of this exception is Stubborn, not requiring a single model with this rule for this unit to benefit.

And after all, it's not like the unit doesn't have a model with this rule so long as the Assault Squad or Devastator Squad exists as a unit.

 Konrax wrote:
Edit: Charistof is the use of the word formation in this instance a noun or verb? As it will completely change the interpretation of nothing at all

Considering that we are discussing the Skyhammer Formation, and Formations in general, what do you think?

Just want to point out that the reason why attached ICs benefit in this case is due to the IC rules for ongoing effects, which states that any benefits or penalties applied to the unit while the IC is attached also effect the IC. Which means that while the IC never gains the actual special rule, it does share the benefit when the rule triggers. ITC ruled against RAW in this case.

SJ

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

nekooni wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you have no explanation for how it's an unit rule when it never says it affects the unit. Something which all rules that affect an unit plainly state.

"Assault squad" is equivalent to "Assault squad unit" or "a unit of Assault Squad" (which both sound fething stupid, which is why GW doesn't use them), as I've just explained and proven with a rule.

Ball -> Your court.

Sorry I don't go after balls that get tossed out of bounds.

Can you explain why they did not say Unit like every other special rule or formation rule or detachment rule that specifies unit? I missed that explanation with some b.s. dancing around changing the unit entry name of a datasheet somehow = unit on the table instead of saying "unit" like every unit rule does.

How could I explain why GW does something? It's just that GW NEVER uses "unit of Assault Squad". Look at the Codex. It's right there, it always uses "Assault Squad" and never uses "unit of Assault Squad" or similar. The rules of the Skyhammer formation "target" the Devs and the ASMs specifically, so they use their normal wording of "Assault Squads" , just like in the codex.

Oh - and "every" special rule?

Amphibious: A Chimera treats all water features as open terrain when it moves.
Repair: If a Rhino is Immobilised, then in subsequent turns it can attempt to repair

Every formation rule?

The Will of the Omnissiah: The Techmarine and Techmarine Gunners from this
Formation have a +1 bonus when
Empyric Channelling: At the start of the Psychic phase, you can nominate one
Librarian from this Formation.
Data Lattice: As long as at least one Stormtalon from this Formation has not been
completely destroyed, the Formation’s Stormraven Gunship has the Strafing Run special
rule.
Fury of the Storm: When a Terminator Squad from this Formation arrives from Deep
Strike Reserve or disembarks from a Transport vehicle from this Formation for the first
time, all ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots they
can make until the end of the turn.

Every detachment rule?
RESTRICTIONS:
Scout Bike Squads in this Formation must be equipped with cluster
mines.
RESTRICTIONS:
The Command Squad must take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
The Chaplain must join the Command Squad during deployment, and
cannot leave it during the course of the battle.

That's just some rules picked from the Inquisition and Astartes Codexes

*edit* To sum it up: GW uses "unit" when it's not clear what kind of unit the rule will affect. e.g. Deep Strike special rule affects many units, therefore the rule uses "unit". Specific rules that target just one unit - like the Amphibious rule for the Chimera - usually (not always) use the name of the unit instead.
A mix of this can be seen in the Fury of the Storm special rule: it targets a Terminator Squad (the unit) and later very precisely describes what the effect is: ranged weapons carried by models in the unit add 1 to the number of shots. This also clearly affects ICs joined to the unit.

i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

blaktoof wrote:
i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

These rules are always on a case by case basis. MOST of those examples reference units when a unit name is presented. In fact, in many cases, they could be referencing nothing but units since nothing but units operate under those names in the game.

However, there are quite a few units whose member models have the same name as the unit. Most of these are Xenos units where there are no characters as part of the unit or single model units like Transports. Deathmarks, Rhinos, Hormagants, etc. Interestingly enough, when their own unique datasheet rules reference the unit being affected, they actually use 'unit' as part of the description for the affect.

A good example of the above are the two unique Datasheet Rules for Deathmarks:


Ethereal Interception uses the generic term "unit" as well as the descriptor "Deathmark unit" for the target of its benefit. This indicates that ICs that have joined this unit would benefit along with the original Deathmark models that start with it.

Hunters From Hyperspace, however, references the Deathmarks in the unit. Since the concept of "unit in this unit" doesn't translate well at all, it is definitely a reference to models that have this name, and so wouldn't include any ICs that joined the unit (unless they were Deathmarks, too! ) .

Let's try it this way:

A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

Aspect Host says models from the formation, not units.

 Konrax wrote:
A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

Actually, the Special Rule must specify, like Stubborn does, in order for the IC to have a unit's Special Rule confer to them, and vice versa. And Stubborn does not actually confer any rule to any model in the unit.

And there is no rule that differentiates a difference between a rulebook USR, a Unit Datasheet Special Rule, a Formation Datasheet Special Rule, or a Detachment Command Benefit's special rule.

 Konrax wrote:
With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

It is a dangerous assumption to make that the IC in question is from the same detachment, considering what this discussion is about. There are a few "HQ" Formations out there, such as the Necron Royal Court, which can provide a few of HQ ICs without taking up a CAD's slots.

And has been pointed out by Stubborn, possession of a rule does not mean an IC cannot be affected by it.

 Konrax wrote:
The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

Formation Special Rules are Special Rules granted to the units of the Formations. Look it up in a 7th Edition codex datasheet section where it discusses Formation Datasheets.

How a model gains a rule is not a requirement for consideration. A unit gaining Stubborn from a Formation Special Rule or Detachment Command Benefit is no different than if it was listed on their own unit datasheet.

 Konrax wrote:
For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

I'd have to read it fully, since context is important, but based on your description, if the IC is part of the unit at the beginning of the game, and the benefit is granted to the units, and the IC is part of the unit it joined?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Aspect Host says models from the formation, not units.

And that is why I like to be familiar with a rule before making a final call.

 Konrax wrote:
Let's try it this way:

A unit never loses the benefits of the formation, and although the rule book says ics gain the special rules a unit has it doesn't say that ics joining a formation gain the special rule it has.

Actually, the BRB doesn't say that the ICs gain the special rule a unit has... it sais it RETAINS any Special rule/Blessing/Malediction that started the effect while they are part of the unit. But yes, nothing about Formation Rules.
In fact, formations specify "X in this formation".
Then, the "Assault squad" wanting to charge is not the "Assault squad in the Skyhammer Formation".

 Konrax wrote:
With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic. The reasoning is that none of the characters are actually granted the rules for the formation as the formation grants those rules to the specific unit that is named, and isn't an inherent ability granted by the unit itself or piece of wargear.

The rulebook states that an ic can gain the special rules of a unit that they join *not* a formations special rules of a unit that they join.

For example the aspect warhost detachment gives +1 bs or ws at the start of the game to all the units in that formation. If you attach a hero to it at the start of the game do they also get a +1 for the rest of the game?

About objective Secure, as you said, The models grant the unit the rule. And is the unit, not a model that capture objectives. (BRB)

In the case of Formations, is the Formation that grants the rule to the models/unit, not otherwise.

Wallur wrote:
But yes, nothing about Formation Rules.

Good thing that there is no such thing as "Formation Rules" in what we are referring to in this discussion. Formations possess Special Rules just like Units possess Special Rules. These Special Rules of the Formation are granted to all the units/models in the Formation.

No distinction is made that Special Rules granted by a Formation are to be treated any differently than a Special Rule granted by a unit's datasheet.

Wallur wrote:
In fact, formations specify "X in this formation".
Then, the "Assault squad" wanting to charge is not the "Assault squad in the Skyhammer Formation".

Clarify, please.

If you mean that an IC that joins an Assault Squad changes the name of the Assault Squad, could you show where in the rules that is stated?

If you mean that if an IC joins a unit from a different Formation, it removes the unit from the Formation, could you reference where in the rules that is stated?

Wallur wrote:
In the case of Formations, is the Formation that grants the rule to the models/unit, not otherwise.

In the case of the Skyhammer Formation, the Formation grants the rule "First the Fire, Then the Blade". This rule, possessed by both units and models originally purchased for the Formation, then grants Relentless to Devastator Squads from this Formation which arrived from Deep Strike Reserves. It also grants permission to Assault Squads from this Formation to Charge on the same turn they arrived from Deep Strike Reserves.

The IC who joins any of these 4-8 units (Combat Squad) will not possess "First the Fire, Then the Blade", nor will it be conferred upon them. However, if they are part of the unit when it arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, they either receive Relentless or the permission to charge because they are part of the respective squad.

40K Rulebook wrote:Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

A HQ independent character in a CAD is not a troops unit and therefore does not have the objective secured rule, as per the quote above. You stated that...

 Konrax wrote:

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

So by your argument, if you add a HQ independent character in a CAD to a troops unit from the same CAD, as the IC does not have the objective secured rule, all models in that unit lose the rule.

 Konrax wrote:

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic.

And then this makes no sense as you argue against what you said before. It doesnt matter what detachment the IC is from. unless its a troops choice IC from a CAD or allied detachement, it would not have objective secured, so adding it to the squad which does immediately removes the special rule according to your argument.

ItsPug wrote:

40K Rulebook wrote:Objective Secured: All Troops units from this Detachment have the Objective Secured special rule. A unit with this special rule controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the objective marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule.

A HQ independent character in a CAD is not a troops unit and therefore does not have the objective secured rule, as per the quote above. You stated that...

 Konrax wrote:

If you add a unit without the special rules from the formation then all the models in that unit lose the rule because the formations rule is not transfered to the ic.

So by your argument, if you add a HQ independent character in a CAD to a troops unit from the same CAD, as the IC does not have the objective secured rule, all models in that unit lose the rule.

 Konrax wrote:

With the argument that obj sec would be lost is incorrect based on my reasoning because that the ic joining is most likely from the same detachment, and that the unit itself has the rule not the ic.

And then this makes no sense as you argue against what you said before. It doesnt matter what detachment the IC is from. unless its a troops choice IC from a CAD or allied detachement, it would not have objective secured, so adding it to the squad which does immediately removes the special rule according to your argument.

I meant it removes the rule in this context because the ic isn't granted any special formation modifiers because they are not part of the sky hammer formation.

Obj sec wouldn't be removed by an ic joining.

But a character not part of the formation shouldn't get the formation rules just because they joined a unit in the formation prior to the game starting.

See my example in the same post about the aspect warhost formation that you didn't reference.

Otherwise the ultimate list would be a drago star with every awesome IA ic mixed with all units in this formation that would cause a turn 1 tabling without your opponent even getting to move a model.

If they did join the unit would be limited to the movement and reserve capabilities of the weaker unit. Just like a bike ic joining an infantry unit doesn't allow it to move 12 or vice versa.

 Konrax wrote:
I meant it removes the rule in this context because the ic isn't granted any special formation modifiers because they are not part of the sky hammer formation.

Obj sec wouldn't be removed by an ic joining.

But a character not part of the formation shouldn't get the formation rules just because they joined a unit in the formation prior to the game starting.

Okay, so which part of the Skyhammer Formation Special Rules require possession by all the models of a unit to function?

See my example in the same post about the aspect warhost formation that you didn't reference.

Wasn't that debunked because you misquoted the rule, or the rule in question did not reference units getting the benefit?

Otherwise the ultimate list would be a drago star with every awesome IA ic mixed with all units in this formation that would cause a turn 1 tabling without your opponent even getting to move a model.

Oh, so RAW doesn't mean Rules As Written, but Rules Assessing Weakness. Good to know.

If they did join the unit would be limited to the movement and reserve capabilities of the weaker unit. Just like a bike ic joining an infantry unit doesn't allow it to move 12 or vice versa.

A bike IC in an Infantry unit can move 12", though, so long as the unit is big enough to not lose coherency.

Reserve capabilities are variable. All models, including Joined ICs, must have the rule to be in Deep Strike Reserves. However, only one model in the unit has to have access to Outflank in order for the unit to be able to Outflank.

The first Skyhammer rule requires Deep Strike be available to all units, but that is the only part of a rule that requires all models to possess a certain rule in the Skyhammer Formation.

You'd be surprised at how quickly you run out of points by even adding just Calgar and Belial (for no scatter DS) if you want to remain battleforged (though that is not a necessity as Formation rules work in unbound). Power level is not what this is about but rules are.

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached. 
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. 

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault. 

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

All 3 premises are lifted exactly from the rules so you will struggle to disprove any. So with that in mind this works unless you have a specific restriction against it. 

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
i am glad you have decided to be reasonable and are now agreeing that the unit name does not have the same meaning as "unit" for rules purposes. If somehow you forgot that you agree that the RAW is the RAW reread your examples.

These rules are always on a case by case basis. MOST of those examples reference units when a unit name is presented. In fact, in many cases, they could be referencing nothing but units since nothing but units operate under those names in the game.

However, there are quite a few units whose member models have the same name as the unit. Most of these are Xenos units where there are no characters as part of the unit or single model units like Transports. Deathmarks, Rhinos, Hormagants, etc. Interestingly enough, when their own unique datasheet rules reference the unit being affected, they actually use 'unit' as part of the description for the affect.

A good example of the above are the two unique Datasheet Rules for Deathmarks:

Spoiler:

Ethereal Interception: If this unit is in Deep Strike Reserve, immediately after an enemy unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve this unit may choose to immediately arrive using the rules for Deep Strike (if this unit does not enter play in this manner, make Reserve Rolls for it as normal in subsequent turns). At the end of that enemy Movement phase, any friendly Deathmarks unit that arrived on the board in this manner during that turn may fire its weapons at any enemy unit that arrived from Reserves that phase; any Deathmarks unit that does so cannot fire its weapons in its following turn.

Spoiler:

Hunters from Hyperspace: During the player turn in which this unit arrives from Deep Strike Reserve, all shooting attacks made by the Deathmarks in this unit will wound on To Wound rolls of 2+, regardless of the victim’s Toughness.

Ethereal Interception uses the generic term "unit" as well as the descriptor "Deathmark unit" for the target of its benefit. This indicates that ICs that have joined this unit would benefit along with the original Deathmark models that start with it.

Hunters From Hyperspace, however, references the Deathmarks in the unit. Since the concept of "unit in this unit" doesn't translate well at all, it is definitely a reference to models that have this name, and so wouldn't include any ICs that joined the unit (unless they were Deathmarks, too! ) .

both of those rules take the time to specify "unit". Do you see any rule in the skyhammer rules that grants it to units? I do not....flingitnow and some others seem to see the word "unit" in the rules, despite it not being there at all.

Assault Squads =/= unit.

It may = models purchased from the "assault squad" datasheet, as that is the unit entry name for models purchased from that datasheet which do form an unit on their own...however that does not mean the name of a datasheet is the same as saying "unit" for rules purposes. In many instances the models from a datasheet will be an unit from that contained datasheet, but some may become parts of other units. ie an IC "space marine captain" is an unit from the "space marine captain datasheet". You can join it to another unit, "assault squad" however "space marine captain" is not the unit, but the name of the unit. When it joins the assault squad the IC is part of the "unit" that was purchased from the assault squad data sheet, but it is not part of the assault squad datasheet. Just as if you join an IC, lets say Ork Warboss, to another IC, lets say Ork Bigmek. They do not both become "ork big mek" they are just in an unit together. One is the name of the unit entry, the other is the physical unit on the tabletop. They are not the same thing.

In the rules you cited, it does use the name sometime but it uses the word "unit" which is a rules basis for things in this game. In the case of skyhammer it never uses the word "unit" in the rules to give permission for models in the unit to benefit. It leaves only permission for datasheet names to benefit. Which could be the models purchased from those datasheets, but cannot be models not purchased from those datasheets.





yes an IC counts as a member of an unit for rules purposes, but we are left with the rule that any unit cannot be part of more than one detachment/formation prior to deployment. The IC rules do not give exception to that. As such the IC cannot be counted as a member from the assault squad datasheet which is in a formation other than its formation/detachment, ever without a special rule telling us specifically that is the case. The skyhammer rules never in their writing reference the unit benefits, therefore an attached IC has no RAW permission to benefit from the rules.

if they intended to let units benefit from the rules they could have easily stated "any units of assault squads with this special rule may assault and slaughter things by xxx" but they did not, the lack of the inclusion of the word "unit" which is what is required to grant permission for a rule to affect an unit, leaves us with no RAW permission to extend the rule to the unit. That it affects all the models in the unit prior to an IC joining does not mean it affects all the models when an IC joins by default, because it is not a rule that specifies it affects "units".

 FlingitNow wrote:
You'd be surprised at how quickly you run out of points by even adding just Calgar and Belial (for no scatter DS) if you want to remain battleforged (though that is not a necessity as Formation rules work in unbound). Power level is not what this is about but rules are.

Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached. 
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. 

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 

Premise C1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes. 
Premise 3: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad from the formation can assault. 

Conclusion 2: When they arrive from deep strike reserve the assault squad with IC attached can assault. 

All 3 premises are lifted exactly from the rules so you will struggle to disprove any. So with that in mind this works unless you have a specific restriction against it. 

Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation.

Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it.

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to ics that join.

Just reposting, because you are both arguing over nothing.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just want to point out that the reason why attached ICs benefit in this case is due to the IC rules for ongoing effects, which states that any benefits or penalties applied to the unit while the IC is attached also effect the IC. Which means that while the IC never gains the actual special rule, it does share the benefit when the rule triggers. ITC ruled against RAW in this case.

SJ

SJ

blaktoof wrote:
Assault Squads =/= unit.

Then I guess the Assault Marines cannot assault after deep striking because units charge, and units are forbidden from charging after the turn they come in from reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Konrax wrote:
Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation.

Nobody said there was a slot to take an HQ unit in the formation. Nobody is arguing you can.

Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter.

Nobody has claimed the rule transfers to the IC. An Autarch in a unit of Dark Reapers does not have SnP, but it still benefits.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it.

Huh? The formation is available as a stand-alone or as part of a Gladius. If it is part of the Gladius, the units get the special rules from both the Formation and the Detachment.

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to ics that join.

And while the IC is attached the Assault Squads and Devastator Squads are still from the formation. According to some however, Assault/Devastator Squad =/= unit which just breaks the formation as only units can charge or be nominated to shoot.

Show me where there is a slot that adds an Hq unit to the formation so it can be counted as part of the formation. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

 
Show me where it says that the formations rules transfer to an ic joining the unit at the start of the game. Or even another example where a formations special rules would apply to an ic in any other formation for that matter. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

As for an example that works similarly. ObSec say you add an IC to a Tactical Squad in an Angel's Wrath Formation.

Then show me where it says that the formation is part of a decurion style formation that could be taken as a sub of a larger formation which grants it the ability to share rules with other formations attached to it. 

Why do I need to show you that when I've made no such claim? Can you argue against the points I actually made? So which of my premises is incorrect?

The sky hammer specifically names the units that are effected and I don't see any other instance where a formation grants its benefits to icsthat join.

Literally the first premises mentioned:


Premise 1: The unit is the assault squad from the formation when the ICis not attached.  
Premise 2: Whilst attached the IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.  

Conclusion 1: When the IC is attached the unit is the assault squad from the formation for all rules purposes.