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 you believe if you attach your warlord to an unit from an allied detachment that your warlord is now from the allied detachment?

Please show where you have permission to be part of the other formation when joining an IC to an unit from a different formation/detachment, which the RAW restricts you from doing so under the rules for detachments.

Otherwise your statements are without any merit.

I'm sorry, are we concerned about a unit or a model in this situation?

The unit never leaves its Detachment. The ICs unit status is subsumed by joining another unit, and is another model of the unit.

This is why a CAD HQ cannot give a Formation Troops unit Objective Secured.

blaktoof wrote:
So you believe if you attach your warlord to an unit from an allied detachment that your warlord is now from the allied detachment?

Please show where you have permission to be part of the other formation when joining an IC to an unit from a different formation/detachment, which the RAW restricts you from doing so under the rules for detachments.

Otherwise your statements are without any merit.

If I attach my Warlord to a unit originally selected as part of an Allied Detachment, then my Warlord will become part of that unit while attached. If the unit as a whole gains a benefit, the Warlord will enjoy that benefit. If the unit gains a benefit with the stipulation that only models originally selected from the Allied Detachment gains the benefit, the Warlord will not enjoy that benefit. There is no such stipulation in this case. The only stipulation is that only the UNITS from the Formation gain the benefit. There is no stipulation that all models in said unit have to be from the Formation. Without such a stipulation, we have to assume that all of the models benefit.

I don't think anyone is saying the Warlord becomes a part of the Allied Detachment. I feel like you think that by joining the Unit, an IC somehow also joins that Unit's Detachment. This is not the case.

"units in this formation" actually does stipulate the formation.

I realize you capitalized UNITS, but here:

stealth suit UNITS from this FORMATION.

In order to claim the attached ic is part of an UNIT from that FORMATION. it has to be part of the unit and from that formation.

there are no rules for ICs counting to be part of the formation they join, so by joining the unit the IC may be a member of the unit, but is in no way "a stealth suit unit from this formation" nor does it count as one, nor is it part of it because it can never qualify as being the last part.

Therefore the rule can only refer to the units purchased for the formation, as it actually states "units of x from this formation" which the IC is not, nor ever will be joined to the unit or not.

So which detachment is the unit from?

 Happyjew wrote:
So which detachment is the unit from?

That's a different question.

All I need to do to refute the people who claim the IC is part of another formation is point out that the IC cannot switch or count as being in a formation/detachment other than the one it was placed in during purchase without a rule specifying otherwise(decurion style formations within detachments).

Which no one who claims the IC can benefit will be able to prove with any rules source.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So which detachment is the unit from?

That's a different question.

All I need to do to refute the people who claim the IC is part of another formation is point out that the IC cannot switch or count as being in a formation/detachment other than the one it was placed in during purchase without a rule specifying otherwise(decurion style formations within detachments).

Which no one who claims the IC can benefit will be able to prove with any rules source.

It is only a different question because it is a follow up question to your answer. It is a question that is being brought up by the situation you are presenting. The joined unit does not stop being the unit it was before the IC was joined, at least according to any rule I have found or someone has properly referenced and quoted. There is no notation that a joined unit stops being part of its detachment when an IC from another detachment joins it, so far as I have found or someone has properly referenced and quoted. There is no notation that the IC's own unit is active as such so long as it is joined to another unit, and indeed one of the methods of leaving notes that its personal unit identity is subsumed before the method is performed.

I have another follow up question for you, "...no unit can belong to more than one Detachment." is the phrase. Where does it state a model cannot belong to more than one Detachment?

Charistoph wrote:

I have another follow up question for you, "...no unit can belong to more than one Detachment." is the phrase. Where does it state a model cannot belong to more than one Detachment?

its a logical fallacy to assume that if a rule affects an unit that it does not affect the models in it.

much like it is a logical fallacy to say that a rule that affects a specific set of units from a specific formation is the same as a rule that specifies it affects just an unit.

e.g.

Stealth affects the unit, the unit with this rule gets to do x if at least one model contains this rule. IC is attached to said unit, the rule specifies it affects the unit if at least one model has it.

IC A is an unit bought from formation 1, Unit B is an unit bought from formation 2.

Unit B has a rule that specifies that Unit B from Formation 2 gets to do x. IC A joins Unit B, IC A is a model in unit B. IC A is not in Formation 2, nor does it count as such. IC A is not part of Unit B from formation 2. Further the special rule never specifies it extends to the rest of the unit if any model has it as all rules which are actually "unit" rules do.

ergo the special rule is not an unit rule, its a rule that models have[formation/detachment benefits are given on a MODEL basis as per the BRB to the UNITS specified] and it is given to all the models in units of stealth suits from that formation. Nothing in the rule specifies it as an unit rule, as it is never stated as affecting the unit if at least one model has it as unit rules do (e.g. stealth, stubborn, shrouded, etc etc)

this results in the following answers for this particular rule:

1- Yes
2-No
3-No

this is also how the ITC has ruled all the rules with "units from x formation" that do not include the wording that the rule extends to the unit if at least one model has it as the many examples of unit rules do [except for the special permission given to NSF and rites of teleportation]. I believe NOVA also rules this way. You may call these faqs house rules, but the RAW is listed above, and you will not find anyone able to quote RAW that the IC counts as, or is, from the formation nor will you find anyone that can reconcile the formation part. You will find people saying it is allowed because the word "unit" exists and they will ignore all of the other words within the rule specifying who benefits so that they can use it.

Is the IC part of the unit? Yes.
Is the Unit part of the formation? Yes.
Does the benefit require that the models in the unit be from the Formation? No.

Which question are you disputing?

blaktoof wrote:
its a logical fallacy to assume that if a rule affects an unit that it does not affect the models in it.

And yet, you are assuming that it happens anyway when a rule affects a unit, but is not allowed to affect an IC joined to that unit.

A unit is an organizational level. It contains models. The units are purchased as part of a detachment. Models are purchased as part of the units. An IC does not always retain its unit identity, and when it joins another, its unit identity is subsumed in to the unit it joins, as referenced by "becomes a part of the unit for all rules purposes", and "he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."

blaktoof wrote:
much like it is a logical fallacy to say that a rule that affects a specific set of units from a specific formation is the same as a rule that specifies it affects just an unit.

Aside from defining specific units, how do they stop being units when called by name, and only referring to the specific models purchased with the unit?

Talk about your logical fallacies.

blaktoof wrote:
IC A is an unit bought from formation 1, Unit B is an unit bought from formation 2.

Unit B has a rule that specifies that Unit B from Formation 2 gets to do x. IC A joins Unit B, IC A is a model in unit B. IC A is not in Formation 2, nor does it count as such. IC A is not part of Unit B from formation 2. Further the special rule never specifies it extends to the rest of the unit if any model has it as all rules which are actually "unit" rules do.

2 problems with this assessment. If IC A is part of Unit B and "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" which includes targeting, being shot, Running, Charging, Falling Back, receiving Stealth and Slow and Purposeful Benefits, where is the rule that states the model stops being part of the unit for Formation Rules?

blaktoof wrote:
ergo the special rule is not an unit rule, its a rule that models have[formation/detachment benefits are given on a MODEL basis as per the BRB to the UNITS specified] and it is given to all the models in units of stealth suits from that formation. Nothing in the rule specifies it as an unit rule, as it is never stated as affecting the unit if at least one model has it as unit rules do (e.g. stealth, stubborn, shrouded, etc etc)

What we are defining as a "unit rule" is a rule that states its affects are on a unit. By stating "units of stealth suits", it is defining itself as a "unit rule". I know you don't believe that, but then you don't think a Unit Name actually refers to a unit, but only an army list entry despite the books who define it.

blaktoof wrote:
this is also how the ITC has ruled all the rules with "units from x formation" that do not include the wording that the rule extends to the unit if at least one model has it as the many examples of unit rules do [except for the special permission given to NSF and rites of teleportation]. I believe NOVA also rules this way. You may call these faqs house rules...

Because they are House Rules, and House Rules I may not actually use.

blaktoof wrote:
...but the RAW is listed above, and you will not find anyone able to quote RAW that the IC counts as, or is, from the formation nor will you find anyone that can reconcile the formation part.

I have not tried to prove the model is from the formation. I have proven that it is part of the unit from the formation. And that is all that the rule asks for, now isn't it?

[quote=blaktoof 668635 8226804 nullYou will find people saying it is allowed because the word "unit" exists and they will ignore all of the other words within the rule specifying who benefits so that they can use it.

and we come back again to where your "logical reasoning" ends up-

without any rules support.

So you believe if you attach your warlord to an unit from an allied detachment that your warlord is now from the allied detachment?

Please show where you have permission to be part of the other formation when joining an IC to an unit from a different formation/detachment, which the RAW restricts you from doing so under the rules for detachments.

Otherwise your statements are without any merit, and there is no permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the IC part of the unit? Yes.
Is the Unit part of the formation? Yes.
Does the benefit require that the models in the unit be from the Formation? No.

Which question are you disputing?

unfortunately you are 100% incorrect on the third part there.

as the rule does specify they are from the formation.

Unless you are claiming the IC is a stealth suit unit from a different formation?

blaktoof wrote:
and we come back again to where your "logical reasoning" ends up-

without any rules support.

So you believe if you attach your warlord to an unit from an allied detachment that your warlord is now from the allied detachment?

Nope, never said that. Just that it counts as part of the unit that is from the allied detachment. There is a difference. But you don't seem to be able to recognize it.

blaktoof wrote:
Please show where you have permission to be part of the other formation when joining an IC to an unit from a different formation/detachment, which the RAW restricts you from doing so under the rules for detachments.

The IC is part of the unit. The unit is part of the Formation. Why is this a challenge for you?

blaktoof wrote:
unfortunately you are 100% incorrect on the third part there.

as the rule does specify they are from the formation.

Unless you are claiming the IC is a stealth suit unit from a different formation?

No, I think he is claiming that it counts as part of a "unit of Stealth Battlesuits from this formation." Which it is.

Charistoph wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
and we come back again to where your "logical reasoning" ends up-

without any rules support.

So you believe if you attach your warlord to an unit from an allied detachment that your warlord is now from the allied detachment?

Nope, never said that. Just that it counts as part of the unit that is from the allied detachment. There is a difference. But you don't seem to be able to recognize it.

blaktoof wrote:
Please show where you have permission to be part of the other formation when joining an IC to an unit from a different formation/detachment, which the RAW restricts you from doing so under the rules for detachments.

The IC is part of the unit. The unit is part of the Formation. Why is this a challenge for you?

blaktoof wrote:
unfortunately you are 100% incorrect on the third part there.

as the rule does specify they are from the formation.

Unless you are claiming the IC is a stealth suit unit from a different formation?

No, I think he is claiming that it counts as part of a "unit of Stealth Battlesuits from this formation." Which it is.

no.

The rules specifically state the IC cannot be in a different formation or detachment, can you post the rule where it specifies you can count as being in the other detachment formation or are in it?

also please state where in the rule in question for TAU it states the rule extends to the whole unit if at least one model has it as unit rules do (e.g. stealth, shrouded, stubborn..)

blaktoof wrote:
no.

Such a pithy comeback, however will I respond?

blaktoof wrote:
The rules specifically state the IC cannot be in a different formation or detachment, can you post the rule where it specifies you can count as being in the other detachment formation or are in it?

Well, the IC UNIT cannot be in a different formation, but there is no specific rule about the model.

I've already referenced how when an IC joins a unit, it becomes part of that unit, and its own personal unit status is subsumed.

Now, for the piece of resistance, HOW an IC can join a unit of another detachment, Allies > Levels of Alliance > Battle Brothers: "Can be joined by an Independent Character that is a Battle Brother."

So, an IC can join a unit that is in a Battle Brother Detachment, become part of that unit for all rules purposes, and only return to its single model unit status by leaving the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
also please state where in the rule in question for TAU it states the rule extends to the whole unit if at least one model has it as unit rules do (e.g. stealth, shrouded, stubborn..)

Hmm, could it be "units of stealth battlesuits" could be a clue? That word "unit" is rather specific in applying to an organizational structure to which an IC is temporarily attached. I am not aware of any definition of the rulebook by which "unit" or calling something by its name, makes the statement exclusive to the original models on its datasheet.

You have yet to produce this definition in the numerous times I asked for it in previous threads, and no doubt you will fail to produce it this time, but still insist that it is as valid as any print codex as usual.

Christoph - as you will have realised by now, blaktoofs position on this is irrational, inconsistent, and fails to be supported by any rules. This has been shown in a number of threads, where despite overwhelming evidence against them, they keep trying to claim the correct side is arguing the warlord swaps detachment.

Of course that isn't, and never is, the argument. Hell, as you've seen, despite denying that is what you're saying, blaktoof will again state you are.

The rules are actually clear; the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. So the unit remains a member of the detachment, then unit gains a benefit, the model is a member of the unit and thus gains the rile or the benefit of the rule.

This is raw, and the itc have again made a rules change without stating as such. Honesty from the itc would REALLY help here, and it is puzzling why they do not mark rules changes as such.

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the IC part of the unit? Yes.
Is the Unit part of the formation? Yes.

Shadowsun is not part of the formation. So No to that question.

Does the benefit require that the models in the unit be from the Formation? No.


The answer is Yes, Page 121 BrB Formations section on the right. "instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules THAT those units gain." Last four words in that sentence means Shadowsun would not gain the Wall of Mirrors be from a different detachment.

Nightbringer3000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is the IC part of the unit? Yes.
Is the Unit part of the formation? Yes.

Shadowsun is not part of the formation. So No to that question.

Does the benefit require that the models in the unit be from the Formation? No.

The answer is Yes, Page 121 BrB Formations section on the right. "instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules THAT those units gain." Last four words in that sentence means Shadowsun would not gain the Wall of Mirrors be from a different detachment.

Not at all, in fact, it actually shows she does gain the special rules.

INDEPENDENT CHARACTER wrote: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.

This tells us that if an IC joins a unit, it is part of that unit for all rules purposes.

Formations wrote:Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

This tells us that the units (not models) purchased through the formation gain the special rules described.

Combining the two rules, if an IC joins a unit, it is part of that unit for all rules purposes, and that unit gains special rules for being purchased from a formation. By the fact the IC is now part of that unit for all rules purposes, it must gain the rule. Otherwise we are breaking the IC rule stating that they are part of the unit.

What I wonder is this:

If you assume that the command benefit of coordinated firepower means that the units who join fire DO in fact resolve their shots as if they were a single unit (which is, you know, what it says to do) then my question is this:

I agree that an IC becomes part of the unit of suits. This is, to me, very clear and unambiguous. The IC would gain the benefits that the suits do (+1 BS, ignores cover, hits on rear armor)

But what about an entirely different unit? For example my Railsides? Do their railguns suddenly gain ignores cover, +1 BS and hit thar Leman Russ on rear armor if they fire along with the stealth suits?

The reason why I'm not sure is because how do I know if the combined unit is a unit of stealth suits or a unit of broadsides? I suppose it comes down to a "who joined who" type of thing and I believe that it would work. Feels really cheesy though.

And one last question - say my stealth suits fire at unit A. A target locked suit fires at unit B. Two more of my units fire at unit B. How many units have fired at unit B?

One? Two? Three?

 luke1705 wrote:
What I wonder is this:

If you assume that the command benefit of coordinated firepower means that the units who join fire DO in fact resolve their shots as if they were a single unit (which is, you know, what it says to do) then my question is this:

I agree that an IC becomes part of the unit of suits. This is, to me, very clear and unambiguous. The IC would gain the benefits that the suits do (+1 BS, ignores cover, hits on rear armor)

But what about an entirely different unit? For example my Railsides? Do their railguns suddenly gain ignores cover, +1 BS and hit thar Leman Russ on rear armor if they fire along with the stealth suits?

The reason why I'm not sure is because how do I know if the combined unit is a unit of stealth suits or a unit of broadsides? I suppose it comes down to a "who joined who" type of thing and I believe that it would work. Feels really cheesy though.

And one last question - say my stealth suits fire at unit A. A target locked suit fires at unit B. Two more of my units fire at unit B. How many units have fired at unit B?

One? Two? Three?

Wow, this is a good one.

Honestly, unless the firing units are from the same formation, I don't think they even retain their special formation rules for shooting. Unlike a IC that becomes part of the units for all purposes, in this case the two units fire as if they were one, but we are not given precedent which one is which. You could say they only retain it for their own unit, but you are then not following the resolve shots as if they were one unit, and when resolving shots is when you apply most of the shooting rules.

I sent this off to White Dwarf and GWfaqs because I don't have a good answer for this.
This looks really close to a segfault rule for 40k.

ICs which join units do not always gain a units special rule. Page 166 of the BrB Special rules section "Unless specified in the rule itself( as in Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rule are not conferred upon the Independent character". Shadowsun would not gain the Wall of Mirrors

However the rule specifically says the UNIT gains those rules. The IC joins the unit and becomes part of the unit for all rules purposes. Therefore, since the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes and the unit gains that rule, the IC also benefits. It satisfies all the quoted rules.

Nightbringer3000 wrote:
ICs which join units do not always gain a units special rule. Page 166 of the BrB Special rules section "Unless specified in the rule itself( as in Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rule are not conferred upon the Independent character". Shadowsun would not gain the Wall of Mirrors

The unit gains the rule. The it is a member of the unit. The IC therefore gains the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nightbringer3000 wrote:
ICs which join units do not always gain a units special rule. Page 166 of the BrB Special rules section "Unless specified in the rule itself( as in Stubborn special rule), the unit's special rule are not conferred upon the Independent character". Shadowsun would not gain the Wall of Mirrors

The unit gains the rule. The it is a member of the unit. The IC therefore gains the rule.

any unit of Stealth Battlesuits from this Formation

She's not part of the Formation.

It doesn't matter if she becomes part of the unit or not, she's not part of the Formation. Resolve her attacks separately.

Incorrect. She is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

She becomes part of the unit that is part of the formation.

It is the exact same as taking an IC as part of any detachment and adding them to an allied detachment troops unit: that troops unit will still have ob sec and even if the ic is the only model in the troops unit within claiming range of the objective it is secured.

vitae_drinker wrote:
Incorrect. She is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Except it actually is correct.

The Rules pg 166 under "Special Rules wrote: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.

"The Wall of Mirrors" special rule does not permit an attached character, Stealth Battlesuit or not, to gain Ignores Cover, add 1 to their BS, or get the guaranteed rear armour hit.


Resolve it separately.

 Kanluwen wrote:

vitae_drinker wrote:
Incorrect. She is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Except it actually is correct.

The Rules pg 166 under "Special Rules wrote: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.

"The Wall of Mirrors" special rule does not permit an attached character, Stealth Battlesuit or not, to gain Ignores Cover, add 1 to their BS, or get the guaranteed rear armour hit.


Resolve it separately.

Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred to ICs?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

vitae_drinker wrote:
Incorrect. She is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Except it actually is correct.

The Rules pg 166 under "Special Rules wrote: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.

"The Wall of Mirrors" special rule does not permit an attached character, Stealth Battlesuit or not, to gain Ignores Cover, add 1 to their BS, or get the guaranteed rear armour hit.


Resolve it separately.

Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred to ICs?

The Rules pg 172 wrote:When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

There is nothing in the wording for "The Wall of Mirrors" that it is similarly permissive.

This, quite frankly, is just coming down to a repeat of the Skyhammer nonsense. People who opt for "The rules don't say I can't, so it does" will be the exact same while people who opt for "The rules don't say you can, so you can't" will be the exact same again.

Incorrect. You are violating the IC rules (becoming part of the unit for all rules purposes). Just because you disagree does not mean you ignore a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wall of Mirrors applies to the unit, and if she is part of the unit (to abide by the IC "part of the unit for all rules purposes") the rule must apply to her as well. Does not violate the secondary IC rule restriction as the rule specifically affects the unit, not models.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

vitae_drinker wrote:
Incorrect. She is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Except it actually is correct.

The Rules pg 166 under "Special Rules wrote: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.

"The Wall of Mirrors" special rule does not permit an attached character, Stealth Battlesuit or not, to gain Ignores Cover, add 1 to their BS, or get the guaranteed rear armour hit.


Resolve it separately.

Where does Stubborn say that it is conferred to ICs?

The Rules pg 172 wrote:When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...

There is nothing in the wording for "The Wall of Mirrors" that it is similarly permissive.

This, quite frankly, is just coming down to a repeat of the Skyhammer nonsense. People who opt for "The rules don't say I can't, so it does" will be the exact same while people who opt for "The rules don't say you can, so you can't" will be the exact same again.

Ah so more ad hominem, when your argument fails again

She is a member of a unit from the formation. She gains the benefit of the rule.

Resolving separately without these benefits is cheating, as you are breaking the absolute IC rule.