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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

That disagrees with what the rules state though. The rules state the Assault Squad can assault and the rules state the IC is a normal me,amber of the squad. Do you now accept that Premise 3 and Conclusion 1 are correct (as you've already stated conclusion 1 and premise 3 is literally the rules from FFTTB). So which of my Premises are incorrect?

No it does not disagree with any rules. It is you who disagrees with the rules. The rules do indeed state the Assault squad can pod-assault. This is not so because it is an assault squad, but instead it is because it is part from a formation. Ie if you pod another assault squad that is not part of the formation, that one cannot pod-assault. So only units that belong TO THE FORMATION can pod-assault. The IC is part of the squad. That being said, it is NOT part of the formation, because the formation datasheet does not include him. The IC cannot get the fire/blade rule from his squad because of how the IC special rule is worded and because the fire/blade rule does not have a specific statement to allow so.

Stop telling me about rules when you REPEATEDLY leave the IC Special rule out of the question all the time. You just can't ignore it. And there ends our discussion, because clearly I cannot convince you of it and you cannot convince me of your statement either. But I am right and you are not because you purposefully leave rules out of the conversation while I take everything into account. And by everything, I mean the rules of the game and not your interpretations of them.


And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

topaxygouroun i wrote:Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

3 is impossible, because the Assault Squad is required to purchase Jump Packs, and so unable to Embark on a Drop Pod.

4 does not matter. The rules do not state that the Formation does things, only units from the Formation do things, and the IC is part of the unit.

gungo wrote:The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist.

How can one be part of a unit called Assault Squad, but not be part of the unit called Assault Squad?

Did you actually proof reed these lines?

gungo wrote:Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

It's been quoted numerous times. "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)," and 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."

So, since Stubborn does not literally qualify Independent Characters, it must mean to use it as an example. Who does Stubborn affect? The unit. To whom does Stubborn confer? Nobody, Stubborn does not confer. Who is ultimately affected by Stubborn? Indirectly, the models as members of the unit.

Now, how many more times do you want to hear it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

YOU.KEEP.THE.INDEPENDENT.CHARACTER.SPECIAL.RULE.OUT.OF.THE.CONVERSATION.REPEATEDLY. THIS.MEANS.ALL.THE.TIME. YOU.CANNOT.KEEP.DOING.THIS.IF.YOU.WANT.TO.KEEP.DISCUSSING.THIS.TOPIC.

Topaxtgouroun i,
In your opinion, what words are used to indicate that an Independent Character joined to a Unit with a Special Rule benefits from that Special Rule?

At it's essence, these are the two Rules people are arguing over:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
- Independent Characters
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.
- Same Special Rule

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dude it is simple.
1. The IC is a part of the assault squad.
2. The IC is not part of the formation.
3. The assault squad can pod-assault because the assault squad is part of the formation.
4. The IC cannot pod-assault because it is NOT part of the formation and it does not have the fire/blade rule.

Is this clear enough for you?

That disagrees with what the rules state though. The rules state the Assault Squad can assault and the rules state the IC is a normal me,amber of the squad. Do you now accept that Premise 3 and Conclusion 1 are correct (as you've already stated conclusion 1 and premise 3 is literally the rules from FFTTB). So which of my Premises are incorrect?

No it does not disagree with any rules. It is you who disagrees with the rules. The rules do indeed state the Assault squad can pod-assault. This is not so because it is an assault squad, but instead it is because it is part from a formation. Ie if you pod another assault squad that is not part of the formation, that one cannot pod-assault. So only units that belong TO THE FORMATION can pod-assault. The IC is part of the squad. That being said, it is NOT part of the formation, because the formation datasheet does not include him. The IC cannot get the fire/blade rule from his squad because of how the IC special rule is worded and because the fire/blade rule does not have a specific statement to allow so.

Stop telling me about rules when you REPEATEDLY leave the IC Special rule out of the question all the time. You just can't ignore it. And there ends our discussion, because clearly I cannot convince you of it and you cannot convince me of your statement either. But I am right and you are not because you purposefully leave rules out of the conversation while I take everything into account. And by everything, I mean the rules of the game and not your interpretations of them.


And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

You keep using pod assault what do you mean by this?

Why does the IC need to have the special rule? Where in the special rule does it require the entire unit to have the rule for it to take effect? Again please point to which of my 3 premises are incorrect. Which? You keep telling me my rules are incorrect but refuse to actually argue against them. Why? Why won't you even attempt to disprove my argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

gungo wrote:
The rules never state the ic is part of the assault squad. It states it is part of a unit. That is not the same thing. Your argument would hold more substance if it didn't consist of adding in words that don't exist in the rules. Or making up rules that don't exist. Please someone show me the page in the rule book were it defines how a model uses or benefits from special rules but never actually has them. You can't just use special rules because you feel like it. It needs to be gained. Whether as part of a unit that gains the rule or by its own or specially allowed through the rule itself. Your idea of benefiting from rules is neither defined or stated anywhere in the rule book and is just made up none sense.

What rules have we made up in my argument. Which of the 3 premises is not in the rules? Which of the 3 have I made up?

YOU.KEEP.THE.INDEPENDENT.CHARACTER.SPECIAL.RULE.OUT.OF.THE.CONVERSATION.REPEATEDLY. THIS.MEANS.ALL.THE.TIME. YOU.CANNOT.KEEP.DOING.THIS.IF.YOU.WANT.TO.KEEP.DISCUSSING.THIS.TOPIC.

Show that rule has relevance. That rule stops the IC gaining the rule unless specifically called out. I have never once claimed the IC gains the rule so explain how that rule is remotely relevant to my argument?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The IC does not have the Fire/Blade rule any more than a Blood Angel Captain joining a Dark Angels Stubborn unit would have Stubborn. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule grants benefits to specific units, as does Stubborn/Fearless/Objective Secured, and UNLIKE Feel No Pain/Relentless. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT require all models to have it, as does Fleet/Deep Strike. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT only affect possessors in the unit, as does Counter-Attack. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

So, now after six pages, we have the same few people repeatedly ignoring the difference between confer and benefit, confused over what a unit does and what models do, etc

An attached IC can assault. This is raw. An attached IC gains relentless. This is raw. Stating otherwise ignores the written rules, makes up entirely new rules out of thin air, or just shows a wilful ignorance of the difference between confers and the word benefit.

It cannot be put simpler than that. There is only so many times you can hammer home the immense gaps in someone's argument befor this dialogue of the deaf gets tiresome

To new readers: raw, an IC attached to the assault squad may assault. This is utter, 100% written rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, now after six pages, we have the same few people repeatedly ignoring the difference between confer and benefit, confused over what a unit does and what models do, etc

An attached IC can assault. This is raw. An attached IC gains relentless. This is raw. Stating otherwise ignores the written rules, makes up entirely new rules out of thin air, or just shows a wilful ignorance of the difference between confers and the word benefit.

It cannot be put simpler than that. There is only so many times you can hammer home the immense gaps in someone's argument befor this dialogue of the deaf gets tiresome

To new readers: raw, an IC attached to the assault squad may assault. This is utter, 100% written rules.

so now after six pages we have the same very few vocal people claiming things without any Rules support, and then waffling on their claims.

to new readers, an IC attached to an assault squad is not able to assault with first the fire and the blade, this is utter 100% rules as written.

Charistoph wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
And to really push it for the last (hopefully) time, there are three rules in question here.

1. The assault squad has fire/blade and can assault -> Definitely.
2. The IC is part of the squad -> Definitely.
3. The IC can pod-assault -> No, because he doesn't have the fire/blade rule. He does not get it because of the IC special rule. <---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The IC does not have the Fire/Blade rule any more than a Blood Angel Captain joining a Dark Angels Stubborn unit would have Stubborn. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule grants benefits to specific units, as does Stubborn/Fearless/Objective Secured, and UNLIKE Feel No Pain/Relentless. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT require all models to have it, as does Fleet/Deep Strike. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

The Fire/Blade rule does NOT only affect possessors in the unit, as does Counter-Attack. ---- YOU CANNOT KEEP IGNORING THIS PART.

most of your points are actually completely false.

the only one you are have correct is that the IC is a model in the unit.

you + about 3 vocal others claim that the unit name = unit. Or rather that the attribute of a datasheet= unit. This is the only way you can jusitfy the claim that the IC is a model in the unit and the rule is an unit rule so therefore the rule must confer to the IC, however you ignore the rule does not say its an unit rule, and you ignore that the rule says "assault squads in the skyhammer anhillation force" which the IC is never, even when attached.

you then go on to make the false poorly thought out claim that because the name of the unit has the word unit in it, that the name of the unit is the same as saying unit. Which has no rules support anywhere. It has as much rules support as saying an IC attached to an unit has to take on the:

7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.

because it has the word unit and an IC is a member of the unit for all purposes, therefore when your IC joins the unit it loses its stats, gear, faction, special rules, etc and has to use the unit composition of the unit it joins. All rules purposes and all.

OR those are not what units are, but are descriptive parts of units purchased for the datasheet, which is what the rules state.

Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

So by saying assault squad in the skyhammer annihilation force for "first the fire then the blade" they are referencing....the space marine unit datasheet purchased to fulfill the required slot for the skyhammer annhilation force. And not an UNIT rule. As the IC cannot join the unit before deployment, and is obviously not a member of the datasheet "assault squad" purchased from the skyhammer annihilation force even when the model is joined to the unit, it is not from the "assault squad in the skyhammer annihilation force" or counts as one, ever.

in no way shape or form is there any RAW saying that any word other than "unit" can be used to try and have an IC give rules to the unit is joined, or benefit from rules of the unit is has joined.

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. 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.

So the special rules, e.g. first the fire then the blade has to SPECIFY in the rule itself, the units special rules are not conferred upon the character. an example for stubborn is given. Here is an example from zealot special rule:

A unit containing one or more models with the Zealot special rule automatically passes Pi[/u]nning, Fear and Regroup tests and Morale checks, but cannot Go to Ground and cannot choose to fail a Morale check due to the Our Weapons Are Useless rule. If a unit gains the Zealot special rule when it has Gone to Ground, all the effects of Go to Ground are immediately cancelled.

notice how it SPECIFIES in the rule itself it extends to the unit if one or more models has it?

Lets look at first the fire then the blade from skyhammer

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

there is no SPECIFIC mentioning anywhere in the rule itself that it affects the unit, or the unit if one or more models has. Which by the absolute RAW means the IC does not have the rule conferred on them, and cannot benefit from it.

It does say "the devastator squad in the skyhammer annihilation force"

some posters (4 of you) seem to think somewhere there is a magical rule that lets you use attributes of army list entries to mean the word unit, and then further that without it being written it means the whole unit has the effect if at least one model has it- also not written. Therefore with this non written anywhere made up rules justification you have come up with, the Unit Name, an attribute of the army list entry, is the same as the word "unit" in your arguement. This of course has multiple levels of no rules support as just shown to you, as well as the implication that when you say an IC is a member of the unit, if "unit" is interchangeable with the army list entry, you are actually claiming an IC joined to an unit is from that army list entry[which is a datasheet] from a different formation. This is specifically not allowed by the rules. It also means if in your land of made up rules that if an attribute of an army list entry (the unit name) is interchangeable with the rule term unit(again no rule support anywhere for this) then the other army list entry attributes are also interchangeable. Which means according to you, if Tigurius joins an unit of scouts he has to use the unit composition for scouts, which includes profile, gear, rules, etc.

the amount of wrong with the things you 4 posters are suggesting is ridiculous.

... same old, same old then.