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.

blaktoof wrote:
both of those rules take the time to specify "unit".

" Ethereal Interception" does for receiving the benefit, yes. "Hunters From Hyperspace" uses unit to reference the trigger and where it says "Deathmarks in the unit" benefitting from the rule. Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit", as opposed to "specific models in the unit", you either haven't actually read the rule, or talking out of your aft orifice.

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.

In every rule. When I get a chance to quote them for you, I'll provide fancy highlights.

Assault Squads =/= unit.

Really? Where does it say otherwise? The Datasheets Legend seems to think that "Assault Squad" is the unit name. And last time I checked, when you called something by its name, you were referring to it, not its blueprints or reference sheet.

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.

Provide the rules quote, or at least a reference to justify this position please. We have proven this wrong on multiple occasions, where does it say it?

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.

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.

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.

Not according to the rules and their context.

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".

Instead, they gave us Stubborn as a reference, and Unit Names to identify specific units. And I am just using that as the standard.

The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules.

That you even admit this and point it out when you say:

Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit"

And then go on to say the opposite is utterly baffling.

Yes Deathmarks in this unit references models bought from the deathmark datasheet with the unit name "deathmarks". That you understand the unit name is not the same as unit Here is good...but then you go on and say the opposite about assault squads?

Really?

blaktoof wrote:
The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules.

Proof, proof, you need proof. Not to mention, completely nonsensical. Where does it say that the unit purchased from the datasheet drops its name from purchase point to deployment?

blaktoof wrote:
That you even admit this and point it out when you say:

Unless you can provide a reason why "Deathmarks in the unit" would translate to "units in the unit"

And then go on to say the opposite is utterly baffling.

That's because you are ignoring the context for some bizarre reason I cannot understand. "Deathmarks" is the name of both unit and model. It is up at the top which the Datasheet Legend states as Unit Name and says, "Deathmarks". "Deathmark is also the name of model as listed in the profile. "Deathmark" is also listed in Unit Composition where it states "5 Deathmarks".

blaktoof wrote:
Yes Deathmarks in this unit references models bought from the deathmark datasheet with the unit name "deathmarks". That you understand the unit name is not the same as unit Here is good...but then you go on and say the opposite about assault squads?

You are confusing two different concepts at this point. Unit and Model. The Deathmark unit starts with 5 Deathmark models. The Deathmark unit can then add 5 more Deathmark models. The datasheet does not tell you to purchase 5 Deathmark "units" for every Datasheet, after all. Nor is it telling you that the "units in this unit" are capable of Wounding on a 2+ when they arrive from Deep Strike Reserves.


Now, using the Datasheet Legend provided by Codex: Adeptus Astartes Ultra Space Marines which states that the #4 position is "4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.", I will point out in bold red every mention of unit or a unit in the Skyhammer Formation Rules that affect the possessing unit and thus affect a joined IC. Note, mention of units that are the targets of the affect, but not possessing them, will not be marked.
Formation:
2 Assault Squads
2 Devastator Squads

Restrictions:
Each Devastator Squad must take a Drop pod as a Dedicated Transport. Each Assault Squad must be equipped with jump packs.

Special Rules:

The name of the unit you can purchase from a datasheet does not mean unit on the tabletop for the purposes of what unit means in the rules. 

Sorry what? The Assault Squad stops being the Assault Squad when on the tabletop? I presume you have some rules to support this bizarre claim?

There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

And then there is that pesky Battle Brothers rule that overrides that.

After all, if you need to consider Alliances, the two are not from the same detachment.

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

There is that pesky rule in the formation, where it gives the benefits of the rule to the unit. Tell me, is the IC a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes? Or will you ignore this rule?

 Konrax wrote:
There is that pesky rule that a unit can't belong to two formations at once, and since the sky hammer has no Hq slots it can't gain the formations additional rules since it says all units in the sky hammer formation.

Who claimed the IC belonged to the Formation? Again you bring up something irrelevant and then argue against that. Have you got any arguments against the premises I posted? Anything to defend your stance? Anything relevant at all?

How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units.

I don't see anywhere posted here that the sky hammer can be taken as part of a gladius strike force either, if it is I would like to see it posted.

If it could be taken as part of a decurion style formation I could see it possibly working but from what I read the sky hammer was a stand alone formation.

Otherwise other things that people quoted don't apply for reasons already posted in this thread.

 Konrax wrote:
How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units.

As stated, just like Stubborn does. How is the source of the rules make any difference?

If a Formation provides Stubborn in its Special Rules, would this not affect an IC just as much as it would if it was on the unit's datasheet?

If not, your rules source for this is... where?

The datasheet legend just grants the units the Formation special rules just as if they were part of the unit's datasheet. No mention of only affecting Formation models is ever mentioned. The rulebook doesn't say anything about Formation Special Rules in the Special Rules heading. Formations and Ally rules do not forbid it. Heck, just allowing ICs to join another detachment's units is more than enough permission for the rules to to benefit them.

How can they benefit from a formations rules that they are not a part of then? Battle brothers doesnt say that it allows you to bypass fundamental force composition and selection rules just because they can mix with different units. 

How can they benefit? See my explanation if you think it is wrong tell me which of the 3 premises is incorrect. Who said anything about changing force composition? Again you bring up an irrelevant point and try to argue against it. So if you are not a troll and genuinely disagree with my interpretation please argue against it. To do this you must either point to an incorrect premise or point to a specific restriction that prevents my interpretation from working.

I don't see anywhere posted here that the sky hammer can be taken as part of a gladius strike force either, if it is I would like to see it posted. 

If it could be taken as part of a decurion style formation I could see it possibly working but from what I read the sky hammer was a stand alone formation. 

Yeah I don't see how it can be part of a Gladius. However if it could be why on earth would that change anything? Why does being a stand alone Formation make any difference at all?

Otherwise other things that people quoted don't apply for reasons already posted in this thread.

Actually no one as yet has even attempted to prove a single one of my premises incorrect nor have they provided any sort of restriction against an IC from benefiting from Formation rules, nor a restriction against units benefiting from formation or detachment rules whilst an IC is attached.

Say I have a Space Marine Tactical squad as part of either a CAD or Demi Company does it still have ObSec when I add the Captain from the same detachment? What about when I add an Inquisitor? Or a Captain from a different detachment?

Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

gungo wrote:
Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

So do you have any actual support for your position or just wild claims about what random stores play. So do you have any arguments against any of my premises?

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. 

You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit ffrom two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment.

Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an ic who joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit.

So really your argument boils down to you adding the word unit to these rules for this formation which doesn't actually exist In The rules.

Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules.

And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does.

And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments.

The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit ffrom two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment. 

I never said the IC was part of the Formation. The rules say you can't belong to more than 1 detachment. They do not say you can't benefit from rules of another detachment. Like for instance ObSec. Are you saying a tactical squad in a CAD loses ObSec when you attach an IC? Say for instance an Inquisitor?

Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an icwho joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit. 

You do realise you defeated your own point at the end there? For those that missed it the Assault Squad is the specific unit we are discussing a unit of which the IC is considered a normal member for all rules purposes.

Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules. 

If the rule says you receive a benefit in X situation you receive the benefit in that situation. There are many examples of models benefiting from rules they do not have. Stealth, Shrouded, stubborn or ObSec are all examples for instance.

And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does. 

Again people on your side of the argument keep bringing up irrelevant things that no one has claimed and then argue against those points. No one has said the IC ever gains the Formation special rule.

And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments. 

Adding made up rules does not give credence to your argument. No rules states a model cannot benefit from multiple formation or detachment rules. Only that he cannot belong to multiple formations or detachments.

The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

The reason we ignore your points is because they have no bearing on our claims or you have flat made up rules. Now again I ask you to actually argue against our argument not against a bunch of points you have made up. So which of my 3 premises is incorrect? Just give me a number first then we will discuss that.

Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

The way I see it, and the way I agreed with last time this was debated:

IC joins Skyhammer at deployment.

Unit (including the IC) Deep Strikes.

Special rule granting the unit permission to charge despite having deployed via Deep Strike the same turn kicks in upon Deep Striking. The unit thus does not actually have permission to assault from Deep Strike until well after the IC has joined it.

IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes, the rule says the Assault Squads are allowed to charge, ergo the IC is part of the Assault Squad for the purposes of being allowed to assault after Deep Striking. The only potential flaw I can see is if "Assault Squad" somehow refers to something other than the Unit by the name "Assault Squad" in the formation, which it doesn't because it'd make the entire rule nonsensical.

 Konrax wrote:
Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

Here are the arguments that no one has even tried to rebuke:


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. 

This is just the same old can I weasel my HQ in an illegal allied transport by using the line "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes," discussion all over again. The "for all rules purposes" is not interpreted in this way by a large majority of the gamers for years now. So while you might be right* the majority -> almost all players you will ever play against disagree with you on this part.

(*[Edit] I'm not saying that you are)

gungo wrote:Every time this question comes up the same 3 people just argue with everyone. The truth is those people will not change thier opinion even though everyone else who interprets rule, runs games and work for gw have stated they are wrong.

And the same 5 people offer counter-arguments while providing no proof. In fact, certain peoples only make declarations that are counter to every single word, legend, and convention of the game (see Blacktoof's assertion that Formation's references to Assault and Devastator Squads are referring to datasheets, not units).

gungo wrote:Not only does every major tournament not allow it but even warhammer world doesn't allow sky hammer formation special rules to transfer over to independant characters.

Link for Warhammer World FAQ? I've heard a few tournaments allowing it.

Not to mention, tournaments are not obligated to run anything RAW, and will make changes for areas they think need balanced. While I will argue that the RAW is that IC's are affected by their rules just like they are by Stubborn, I have never once argued whether this was balanced.

gungo wrote:There is no seperate timing for the special rules in the sky hammer formation "first the fire then the blade" is only gained during deployment.

No, it is not. "First the Fire, Then the Blade" is gained during army purchase just like the Necron Reclamation Legion gaining Move Through Cover is gained on purchase, not deployment, or a Blood Angel Tactical Squad gaining Furious Charge gaining Furious Charge on purchase, not deployment.

gungo wrote:Secondly independant characters can never gain rules from a formation they are not part of and the bs these people state about benefiting rules but not gaining them is made up. There is nothing in the rule book that states characters benefit from rules they don't have.

It is no more made up than it is for Stubborn. Stubborn does not grant its rule to the models in the unit, yet the Leadership of every model in the unit remains unaffected during Morale Checks and Pinning Tests. There is no mention of a difference between Formation Datasheet Special Rules and Universal Special Rules Can you properly reference it?

gungo wrote:Honestly the only people trying to make this formation work with independant characters is that guy at your flgs who just argues all day trying to twist rules to work how they want. This is why no major tournament plays that way. But don't worry I fully expect the same 3 people to get this thread locked arguing like they have done on several other forums.

I left Space Marines a long time ago. So, that can't be my reason. I think Mr. Shine runs Eldar. So, that can't be his. Could it be that we are following the rules we have read, and no one has been able to present any supportable argument?

gungo wrote:You do realize it's wrong to say the ic is part of the formation for a rules purposes not only because the ic rules specifically call out the fact it doesn't work but because the rules for detachments and command benefits specifically state a model can never benefit from two detachments. An ic is already part of a cad or another detachment.

I think you're stretching.

It never actually states that a model cannot benefit from two detachments, only they cannot be members. And it has never been our position that the IC becomes members of the detachment, just members of the unit when rules affect them and actions are taken.

It has never been a supportable position that possession is the only way a model can benefit from a Special Rule. Possession is not required for most Universal Special Rules that affect the unit. Indeed, those tend to be the exception (ex: Deep Strike, Fleet). While there are numerous unit-benefiting units which do benefit non-possessing models, such as Stubborn, Fearless, Zealot, and Slow and Purposeful

gungo wrote:Furthermore in this formations rules not only does it never state unit. It specifically calls out only "squads" in this formations. And while an ic who joins a unit is considered part of the unit for rules purposes. It is never an "assault squad" which is the name of a specific type of unit.

The first rules mention unit. And this concept that joined ICs are not "assault squad" are ignoring datasheet legends and seem to think that Marines and Sergeants are "assault squads". Can you reference when a unit is called by name it is only referencing the original members of the unit?

gungo wrote:So really your argument boils down to you adding the word unit to these rules for this formation which doesn't actually exist In The rules.

The IC rules state that the IC counts as being part of the unit for all rules purposes. While the Special Rules do not automatically confer, and are specifically mentioned, the unit name is not mentioned as being ignored.

gungo wrote:Or just flat out making up new rules such as stating the model doesn't gain any rules but simply benefits from rules it doesn't have. This is never stated in the rule book anywhere nor does it even exist in the game. A model only benefits from a rule when it gains the rule as part of its own rules or gains special rules as part of a unit. However when the game specifically forbids that model from gaining a special rule even when you are in a unit, you can never benefit from the rules.

Not literally, no. But then, let's follow the rule chain:
Independent Characters > Special Rules - "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them."
Stubborn - "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests, they ignore any negative Leadership modifiers. If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead."

Now, IC rules require the rule to specify that the Independent Character be included as in the Stubborn Special Rule. Where does Stubborn literally specify Independent Characters are included?

It does not. It can only be implied because the rule affects the unit in its entirety.

gungo wrote:And then ignoring the second part of the ic rules you quoted where it specifically states ic does not gain special rules from units it joins unless it is specifically called out in those special rules. Something "first the fire then the blade" never does.

And certain people seem to be ignoring the example Stubborn provides, even though it is used as the example of exception. And "First the Fire, Then the Blade" specify ICs as much as Stubborn does.

gungo wrote:And then ignoring the rules for detachments which further states a model can never benefit or be a part of multiple detachments.

Not ignoring. I simply do not acknowledge rules that do not exist. There are no rules that state a model can never benefit from joining another detachment, just that they cannot be part of another detachment.

And yet, the rules for Battle Brothers state that ICs can join units from other detachments. It does not state they do not benefit from this. Battle Brother units can also benefit from many of the other buffs, like Warlord bubble buffs.

So, where exactly does it state that models can never benefit from another detachment again?

gungo wrote:The people arguing to use these rules always fails to accept the above points and keep making up rules such as they don't gain rules they only benefit, they are not part of the formation but still gain the rules, and assault squad means the exact same thing as unit in the rules even when it doesn't. This is a whole lot of making up rules that just is not what RAW.

Of course we fail to accept the above. Most, if not all, have been made up rules to justify denying ICs from benefiting from powerful rules and cannot, nor have not, been properly referenced.

Konrax wrote:Please repost all supporting arguments for ics being able to use sky hammer rules since they seem to be scattered all over.

That way they can all be addressed instead of people saying their being ignored.

It seems that some of our requests for information and proper reference are also being ignored. Instead, we reference rules, and we are accused of making things up. We counter with rules references and we get accusations or silence.

oldzoggy wrote:
This is just the same old can I weasel my HQ in an illegal allied transport by using the line "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes," discussion all over again. The "for all rules purposes" is not interpreted in this way by a large majority of the gamers for years now. So while you might be right* the majority -> almost all players you will ever play against disagree with you on this part.

(*[Edit] I'm not saying that you are)

Hardly. In 7th Edition, if you can join an IC to a Battle Brother unit, and Battle Brothers can mount Transports.

In 6th Edition, it was explicit that only that Battle Brothers could no mount the Transport, and no distinction was made for this just being the units that were forbidden.

It is 100% this discussion all over again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/571066.page#6393202

You only need to swap "can't assault from deep-strike" with "can't enter allied transports" and it is basicly the same discussion it all comes down to the interpretation of the "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes" line.

That line has not changed it did not work then and it still does not work now.

oldzoggy wrote:
It is 100% this discussion all over again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/571066.page#6393202

You only need to swap "can't assault from deep-strike" with "can't enter allied transports" and it is basicly the same discussion it all comes down to the interpretation of the "IC is part of the Unit for all rules purposes" line.

That line has not changed it did not work then and it still does not work now.

Not quite. The 6th Edition Battle Brothers rule states, "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." No mention of unit (either generically or named) is made.

I'm sorry my comments might be confusing. What I tried to say was.

Yes you can join a unit of deep-striking assault marines from an other detachment if your IC can deep strike there is noting wrong with that.

The discussion that he then can assault with the unit because he is part of the unit, is the same discussion as the discussion we had in 6th.
So no you can't assault with IC's attached to the assault squad.

oldzoggy wrote:
I'm sorry my comments might be confusing. What I tried to say was.

Yes you can join a unit of deep-striking assault marines from an other detachment if your IC can deep strike there is noting wrong with that.

The discussion that he then can assault with the unit because he is part of the unit, is the same discussion as the discussion we had in 6th.

It was coming in clear, but apparently you weren't understanding what I was saying in response.

The 6th Ed rules forbidding Battle Brothers from entering Transports was not on a unit-by-unit basis, specifically. If it was, then there would be an argument of RAI. Since units were not mentioned in this line, considering it from the perspective of models is valid, and so a joined IC would stop a Battle Brother unit from entering their Transport.

Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Without that line it would not work.

No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

First the Fire, then the Blade says you need to be a Devastator or Assault Squad in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arriving from Deep Strike Reserve that turn in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all members of Devastator or Assault Squads in a Skyhammer Annihilation Force arriving from Deep Strike Reserve that turn since it only requires the unit be those things.

Without that line it would not work.

Errr, no. The rules tell us to refer to Stubborn to see where a rule tells us whether it benefits joined Independent Characters or not. Stubborn tells us it benefits the unit, just like for example First the Fire, then the Blade.

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

This is wrong because those questions are not all parallels to the situation we're discussing, but I'll answer them.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

First and foremost, no one is saying the joined Independent Character is given the special rule. The point is that the existence of the special rule grants an ability to the unit, so in the same way a joined IC does not receive the Stubborn rule they simply receive thebenefit of the rule

Feel No Pain specifically refers to models with the special rule, so naturally a joined IC will not gain the benefit of Feel No Pain unless they actually have the rule.0

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

So long as all conditions for the unit gaining Feel No Pain are met and the Independent Character is joined to the unit at the time those conditions are met then yes, of course.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Can you demonstrate one single unique datasheet special rule where at least one model in the unit does not have the rule?

In addition, can you demonstrate that this key phrase is what the IC rule is referring to by "specified in the rule itself"?

 Konrax wrote:
Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

So, you are saying that this establishes the "minimum" requirement for the rule to be conferred, and any case where it does not carry this phrase automatically means all models must carry it? If so, can you provide a reference where it states this?

If so, then why does Deep Strike and Fleet still require all models in the unit to possess the rule in order for the unit to benefit? And why does the Independent Character still qualify as a limit when it cannot benefit?

 Konrax wrote:
Without that line it would not work.

Spiritually, you are correct, to a point. However, there is a difference between requiring a statement and providing an example. The reference to Stubborn, nor Stubborn itself, actually define this as a required phrase.

 Konrax wrote:
No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

You are correct. IC rules do not even say this, which is what refers you to the example. Yet, you are using it as one. Stubborn is given as an example, but it never actually makes any statement on what part of it qualifies.

Also, this phrase standard is not met by any unique datasheet rule. So, unless the intention is that only USRs and the occasionally rare Army Special Rule are capable of including ICs in unit affects, than this standard is quite unreasonable.

 Konrax wrote:
For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

On one hand it says they can't, and then says then can. Stubborn is given as the benchmark (along with Blind). And it never really specifies using any version of doing so in the English language.

 Konrax wrote:
If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

Does FNP meet the standards we have presented? No it does not. It is not a rule that provides a unit-benefit. It only affects the model, much like Relentless. It does not affect the unit like Slow and Purposeful, Stubborn, or Ethereal Interception does.

But here's a question for you, if a Blood Angels Captain joins a Reclusiarch Command Squad, would the Captain be able to take advantage of the the Command Squad Apothecary's Narthecium? According the standards we have presented, yes he would, because the Narthecium grants FNP to all models in the unit.

 Konrax wrote:
If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

It depends on how it is granted to the unit, now doesn't it? If the rule grants Pickle Squad Feel No Pain when targeted by Artillery, then the IC joined to the unit would receive Feel No Pain when the Pickle Squad is targetted by a Thunderfire Cannon.

If however, it is:
Special Rules:
* Feel No Pain (Pickle Squad)

Then, no, it wouldn't any more than a Combined Arms Necron Overlord gaining Relentless by joining a Reclamation Legion Immortals Squad.

 Konrax wrote:
If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

The standards used for "Feel No Pain" are completely different from the standards used in either "Stubborn", "Shock Deployment", "First the Fire, Then the Blade", "Suppressing Fusillade", or "Leave No Survivors".


Our position:
1) Independent Characters do not normally share Special Rules with or from the units they join. - Listed in the Special Rules section at the beginning under "What Rules Do I Have?", as well as the Special Rules section of Independent Characters. Note, this applies to ANY model. Codex Techmarines do not give Independent Character benefits or rule to the Servitors.

2) Independent Characters count as part of the unit they join for all rules purposes. - No, this does not mean they count as if they were a part of the datasheet(s) that the joined unit was purchased under. It just means that anything that happens to the unit, or any rules that benefit the unit during play, also affect and carry the joined IC along with it until they are separated.

3) Possession of a rule is not required in every case, some rules will specifically affect or benefit the unit as a whole. - Stubborn is used as the example and the standard in the Independent Character Rule for this. Stubborn does not grant its models any benefits whatsoever. All of its benefits are granted to the unit, nothing is mentioned of models or ICs, save as a trigger requirement.

4) Unit names are used to reference specific units. - There are three unit names involved in the Skyhammer Formation. All 6-10 units (6 originally purchased + 4 possible Combat Squads) possess all four of the rules, but only certain units are meant to take advantage of them. Nothing in this situation indicates that calling a unit by name ignores the Independent Character Rule mentioned in #2, so one cannot separate out the IC in these cases.

So, what we get in counter-argument is:
1) The rule needs to be on the model's datasheet in every case. - Looking for Reference to counter IC's rules which state they can if they specify like Stubborn.

2) The Skyhammer rules are only referring to datasheets not units. (Blacktoof) - So laughable, this should be used in cases of how not to debate. Units are put in Deep Strike Reserves. Units Deep Strike. Units Jump. Units Charge. Units target other units. Units roll To-Hit. Datasheets are blueprints and reference sheets, nothing more. Look up the rules on how to use them if you think otherwise.

3) You need at least one model in order for the unit to have it. - Actually part of our position, spiritually speaking, at any rate. Any model listed on a datasheet will possess the Special Rule (unless specifically noted like Eldar Exarchs or Codex Techmarines). There are only a few occasions where an IC will be "in the unit" and no other model in the unit does not have the Skyhammer Rules. At which point, the IC will no longer be "in the unit" at the start of the next Phase.

4) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" is a required phrase in order for an IC to be affected. - Looking for Reference stating this phrase is required.

5) "A unit with at least one model with this special rule" indicates a reduction of the minimum from all to one. - Looking for Reference stating that this is the case, especially with cases like Deep Strike and Fleet in the Universal Special Rules list which spell this out to counter this.

6) Any reference to a unit's name by a rule is only referencing the original models of the unit, and does not include any joined ICs. - Looking for a reference that states this.

7) Formation datasheet special rules are not like unit datasheet special rules or Universal Special Rules and only affect the models purchased with the formation. - Looking for a reference that states this (would be nice for any, really) distinction between Formation Special Rules and any other Special Rules provided by any source.


Edit: TL;DR. In short, we have permission granted by all the "general" rules regarding the situation. At this point, the rules need to be specific in order to counter them. The Skyhammer Formation Special Rules only state unit-focused rules, and do not restrict them any other way.

 Konrax wrote:
Stubborn says you need at least one model in order for the unit to have it.

Which translates to it conferring its benefit to all models in the unit since it only requires one.

Without that line it would not work.

No where in the formation rules, detachment rules, or ic rules say that.

For ics it says they can benefit from special rules from the unit... That in my understanding can be shared.

If a unit has FNP as a special rule, and an ic joins that unit, does the ic also get FNP?

If FNP is granted to a specific unit from a formation that is named, and an ic joins that unit does he also get FNP?

If you answer no to any of those questions then the ic can't gain the formations special rules.

The IC doesn't get to charge because he recieves the rule FROM the unit, it gets to charge because it is part of the unit when the Unit (and not part of the unit, the entire unit) recieves permission to charge from Deep Strike. The Assaul Squad in question isn't actually allowed to charge from Deep Strike until it has already Deep Struck, since that is when the rule triggers.

So, after 3 more pages where the exact same conclusion, supported by the actual written rules , has been reached - can this be closed?

The no-IC-charging crowd cannot come up with asingle supprotable argument. none. Nothing. Nil. Every single argument has been ripped to shreds, repeatedly, from every angle and approach.

The only excuse to not allow it is purely one of balance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, after 3 more pages where the exact same conclusion, supported by the actual written rules , has been reached - can this be closed?

The no-IC-charging crowd cannot come up with asingle supprotable argument. none. Nothing. Nil. Every single argument has been ripped to shreds, repeatedly, from every angle and approach.

The only excuse to not allow it is purely one of balance.

This is one opinion. The other could be that the "I want my IC death star to assault on turn 1 crowd" is just to stubborn to listen.