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.

I'm treating this as sort of like how the Combined Arms and Allied Detachments are available to every Faction... but not every Faction can actually field them because they don't have legal units to fill each slot.

Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

Officio Assassinorum can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

Imperial Knights can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

Legion of the Damned can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

Eldar Harlequins can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

Inquisition can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid Troops choice in the entire army.

Now stick with me for a second, because this is going to sound really similar.

Eldar Corsairs can't field an AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.

See what I did there? I provided six examples of Factions that have access to the Allied Detachment but can't actually field one due to lack of options to fill compulsory slots. The Eldar Corsairs can't actually field one for the same reason. The HQ that they are required to field has to be a Warlord, yet the Warlord can never be in an AD. The only way to obey both rules is to realize you can't ever field an Eldar Corsairs Allied Detachment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the factions you've mentioned there (save for Corsairs) specifically mention the detachment they can't take? e.g. Harlequins don't say 'may only be taken in a CAD, AD or Masque detachment'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You're told the detachment is available. It doesn't mean you can actually fulfil all requirements, however. It provides absolutely zero permission and in fact is AGAIN redundant, as you always have cad or ad as options, brb covers that.

But that's the point, if you're right then the AD is *not* available. Because there is no possible way you can legally use one, given that the mandatory element alone is enough to make it illegal.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

6th ed required a warlord that had to be a character. You could build a tervigon HQ led list in 6th who wasn't a character. All the components were legal, the combination wasn't.

You broke the rule stating the prince must be the warlord

Here's a test. You build your possible AD list. You read the rule on page 158, and ask "is the Prince the armies warlord?"

Your answer is....? And if you answer "no", as you must do, have you complied with this absolute requirement? Yes or no. If no, which is the only possible answer, does that mean you have broken or followed the rule?

If you answer "followed", then there is no possible argument that can sway you.

I thought we were talking about the Baron?

Either way though, you're making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken, which is demonstrably fallacious. Virtually every special rule involves the breaking of at least one core rule. Every time you fire a pinning weapon at a unit that can't be pinned, you're breaking the rules. When your ATSKNF unit is swept but stays locked in combat instead of being cut down, you're breaking the rules. When you fire a Lance weapon at a model with Quantum Shielding, you're breaking the rules.

Except that you're not, are you?. What you're actually doing is following the rules. But sometimes you have a rules conflict, in which one rule overrides another. This is not the same as breaking the rules. If you think it is, then no game should ever be legal in your eyes because rules are "broken" all the time. The same thing applies to the Prince:
- Choosing an AD is not breaking any rules.
- Choosing a Prince is following the Corsair rules.
- The issue arises when the Prince's rules conflict with those of the AD. The only difference between this and, say, an ATSKNF unit being swept in combat is that it's less obvious which rule overrides the other.

Same goes for using a Cloud Dancer baron in a Coterie/detachment with only non-Cloud Dancer units. You're attempting to follow his rules by putting him into a squad, but then there's a conflict because his rules also say he's not allowed to join that squad. Again, the issue is not that you've caused a conflict - they happen all the time - the issue is that there's no obvious way to resolve it. But, again, this does not make the list illegal, nor does it equate to you breaking the rules.

Stop putting words in my mouth

I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course)

Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

You have two restrictions, and not a permisison overriding a restriction.

Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.

Over to you. Page and graph. Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.

Failure to show permission, for the 10th time of asking (it feels like) means your argument fails.

Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.

Oh, and it isnt "less obvious" than ATSKNF - ATSKNF explicitly provides permission to avoid the consequences of Sweeping Advance. it even mentions it by name. Youre pulling redundant rules information, none of which actually addresses the issue you are creating, and pretending theyre in anyway similar.

The rule is UTTERLY explicit: "A" Prince MUST be the Warlord. If you put him in a detachment where he CANNOT be the warlord, and do so without PERMISSION to do so, you have broken a rule.

Breaking a rule is cheating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"

Yes you are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course)

Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

This is covered by advanced vs basic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have two restrictions, and not a permisison overriding a restriction.

Two contradictory restrictions. i.e. a conflict. Again, this is covered by advanced vs basic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.

It would actually be resolved the other way round - the prince would be your warlord leading to a massive mess of an AD. As resolutions go, it's neither useful nor practical (and makes the AD entirely pointless), but it is a legal resolution nevertheless.

Regardless, I'm willing drop the whole AD thing as, at best, it seems like RAI vs RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.

You're right. What a bastard I am for thinking that an army that specifically mentions using an allied detachment, as well as stating multiple times that it can be taken as allies by other races, can be taken in an allied detachment.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.

Show me how you legally resolve Lance vs quantum shielding. Or legally resolve Soul-Wracked against a Fearless or Jetbike Prince.


Oh look, you've already contradicted yourself:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Breaking a rule is cheating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"

Want to revise one of those statements?

Once again, it is not cheating to break a rule when two rules contradict one another. In the case of the baron, you are first told that he must join a unit, but are then told that none of your units are eligible for him to join. Considering that this doesn't come up until the game has been started, after your list has already been finalised, you tell me what the legal resolution is.

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"

Yes you are.

Incorrect. As in, factually and undeniably you are wrong. Drop this.

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course)

Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

This is covered by advanced vs basic.

Only when a permisison conflicts with a restriction. Oh, and fairly certain the rule for the AD is an ADVANCED rule. As in, it is listed after all the basic rules. So not even your bare cite works.

Here you have two restrictions. Find the permisison. Oh wait, you cannot. Your argument has therefore failed, again.

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have two restrictions, and not a permisison overriding a restriction.

Two contradictory restrictions. i.e. a conflict. Again, this is covered by advanced vs basic.

Incorrect, as proven. Try again. or dont.

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.

It would actually be resolved the other way round - the prince would be your warlord leading to a massive mess of an AD. As resolutions go, it's neither useful nor practical (and makes the AD entirely pointless), but it is a legal resolution nevertheless.

Regardless, I'm willing drop the whole AD thing as, at best, it seems like RAI vs RAW.

There is no RAI on this. You are explicitly told they must be the warlord, and you have a reminder rule (as it provides no new permisison)that the AD is in theory an option. Excpet later on they wrote a rule that means you cant actually use it. Same as the BRB rule lets Harlies use AD, yet they cannot do so.

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.

You're right. What a bastard I am for thinking that an army that specifically mentions using an allied detachment, as well as stating multiple times that it can be taken as allies by other races, can be taken in an allied detachment.

Yes, what a bastard you are for pretending a restirciton is a permisison simply so you can have your way, and also for conflating "allies" with "using the Allied Detachment only" or "cannot be tjhe Primary", when the actual fething rules, which you continually ignore, tell you that ALL detachments are allies of eachother. This concept you created, where you have Primary detachments and only "other" detachments are "Allies", has absolutely no basis in any rule in the game. Drop it, or cite where you have found this rule from as per the tenets.

The BRB "specifically" mentions all races can use the AD. Does that mean races with no HQ can now use it?

vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.

Show me how you legally resolve Lance vs quantum shielding. Or legally resolve Soul-Wracked against a Fearless or Jetbike Prince.

Ah, so you are throwing up entirely different arguments to avoid the fact you cannot show the required permission?

I accept ypou cannot construct an argument, and will instead deflect, as you have for 4 pages now.

vipoid wrote:
Oh look, you've already contradicted yourself:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Breaking a rule is cheating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"

Want to revise one of those statements?

Lol. apparently the word "legally" doesnt make any difference there, and the two sentences are identical. Flailing much?

vipoid wrote:Once again, it is not cheating to break a rule when two rules contradict one another. In the case of the baron, you are first told that he must join a unit, but are then told that none of your units are eligible for him to join. Considering that this doesn't come up until the game has been started, after your list has already been finalised, you tell me what the legal resolution is.

It is cheating when you must first break no rule. When you have permisison to do so, you may break one rule to satisfy another. ATSKNF being a great example - you break the effects of SA by not dying if caught. But look! That rule contains the specific permisison.

What youre pretending isnt needed, when the entire game is based on this, is permission

You are lacking explicit or specific reference to this. For example, the rule on page 158 needs to say "this applies even in an allied detachment, replacing the usual AD restriction" - or conversely they would have had to (presciently) write the AD detachment restriction to state "this does not apply to Eldar corsair armies from IA11 2nd edition"

Without this you have no permission, just two restrictions. You cannot fulfil both at the same time, neither has permission to override the other, and therefore your army list IS illegal.

The components are legal, the detahcment is a legal option, the combinagtion is not. I'm sorry this isnt the answer you want, and that you had already made your mind up on this, but you have no argument, no rules support, absolutely nothing that makes your version of reality the correct one.

Clearly, avoiding explicitly said fact that Corsairs can be taken as allied detachment is cheating, as it breaks the Specific vs General rule.

Corsairs are specific faction.
Their codex explicitly says they can be taken in CAD AD and their own formation.
Formation imposes a restriction (not requirement) on what can be taken in this formation. Prince MUST be chosen as a warlord.
Nobody needs any permission as the rule STATES that you select him as warlord. (at the time you select your warlord, after you made the formation). Prince's ruling allows you to ignore formation restriction, just as flying daemon would ignore dangerous terain made by Sanctuary.

There is no any separation on restriction/permission/requirement in the rules tho, you just do what they say. And Prince's ruling is clearly not a restriction at all, as it says you MUST take him as warlord, not that CANT take other characters as warlords. Its not restriction, but a course of action you must perform - appoint him as your warlord.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Incorrect. As in, factually and undeniably you are wrong. Drop this. I think you should drop it, having already contradicted yourself.

Only when a permisison conflicts with a restriction. Wrong as usual. Oh, and fairly certain the rule for the AD is an ADVANCED rule. As in, it is listed after all the basic rules. So not even your bare cite works.

Here you have two restrictions. Find the permisison. Oh wait, you cannot. Your argument has therefore failed, again.

Incorrect, as proven. Try again. or dont.

If you're going to act like a condescending jackass, the least you can do is be right. "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence." Notice the complete lack of 'restriction vs permission'? Almost as if that's a load f nonsense you've just pulled out of your ass.

There is no RAI on this. You are explicitly told they must be the warlord, and you have a reminder rule (as it provides no new permisison)that the AD is in theory an option. Excpet later on they wrote a rule that means you cant actually use it. Same as the BRB rule lets Harlies use AD, yet they cannot do so. Again, it's not just that they specifically mentioned the allied detachment it's that they also stated multiple times that other races can take Corsair allies. But, I guess expecting you to read anything at this point is idiotic.

Yes, what a bastard you are for pretending a restirciton is a permisison simply so you can have your way, and also for conflating "allies" with "using the Allied Detachment only" or "cannot be tjhe Primary", when the actual fething rules, which you continually ignore, tell you that ALL detachments are allies of eachother. This concept you created, where you have Primary detachments and only "other" detachments are "Allies", has absolutely no basis in any rule in the game. Drop it, or cite where you have found this rule from as per the tenets.

Want to remove that massive chip from your shoulder before we continue?

Ah, so you are throwing up entirely different arguments to avoid the fact you cannot show the required permission? No, I'm proving that your logic is inherently flawed.

I accept ypou cannot construct an argument, and will instead deflect, as you have for 4 pages now. Says the person who has contradicted himself, demonstrated that he can't read, and is avoiding answering questions because he knows his "argument" is crumbling around him.

It is cheating when you must first break no rule. It's cheating when I must first break no rule? Do you even hear yourself? When you have permisison to do so, you may break one rule to satisfy another. ATSKNF being a great example - you break the effects of SA by not dying if caught. But look! That rule contains the specific permisison. I have also given you examples of rules that contain no such permission. Still waiting for an answer on those.

What youre pretending isnt needed, when the entire game is based on this, is permission Permission to do what exactly?

You are lacking explicit or specific reference to this. For example, the rule on page 158 needs to say "this applies even in an allied detachment, replacing the usual AD restriction" - or conversely they would have had to (presciently) write the AD detachment restriction to state "this does not apply to Eldar corsair armies from IA11 2nd edition" Why are you still on the damn AD thing? I have dropped it entirely. We're talking about Barond, yet you then cut back to the AD for some reason.

Without this you have no permission, just two restrictions. You cannot fulfil both at the same time, neither has permission to override the other, and therefore your army list IS illegal.

The components are legal, the detahcment is a legal option, the combinagtion is not Again, why? . I'm sorry this isnt the answer you want, and that you had already made your mind up on this, but you have no argument, no rules support, absolutely nothing that makes your version of reality the correct one. You're the one who seems to be lacking any coherent argument. First you blather on about unrelated allied detachments, then you say that I don't have permission to take this army. Apparently ignoring that the rulebook gives me permission. You'll find it in the section about building an army.

I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:

1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)

Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.

What faction is that AD? Is it the same as the Warlord? If so what does the AD say about containing units with the same faction as your Warlord?

 EnTyme wrote:
I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:

1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)

Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.

I'm afraid that doesn't work. Allied Detachments have to be a different faction to your Primary Detachment. So, if your Primary Detachment is Corsairs, you can't include any Allied Detachments of Corsairs.

 vipoid wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:

1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)

Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.

I'm afraid that doesn't work. Allied Detachments have to be a different faction to your Primary Detachment. So, if your Primary Detachment is Corsairs, you can't include any Allied Detachments of Corsairs.

Ah, see I've never used an AD (Necrons don't have allies). Well, there goes my theory.

Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons (special rules withstanding). The only difference is the level of alliance.

Yeah my Necton always take allies. Have to Bro fist with Culexus Assassins like every other race in existence due to the stupidity of the invisistar...

 Ghaz wrote:
Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons. The only difference is the level of alliance.

Corsairs can't. They're not allowed to ally with Chaos or Necrons. Not even at the 'Come the Apocalypse' level.

So if a unit has the "may charge the turn they arrive from reserves" rule, it means it may fire a heavy weapon and still charge (presume it has no other rule such as SnP or relentless here).?

Simple yes or no needed. Sure you can manage that.

Could you quote the exact rule?

…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.


So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?

According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.

Similarly Assault vehicle (an advanced rule) vs running and charging (a basic rule). If I run having disembarked, may I charge?

Or, in fact, do I need permission to,override another restriction?

 Ghaz wrote:
Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons (special rules withstanding). The only difference is the level of alliance.

Allow me to rephrase: Necrons need no allies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.

So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?

The Vanguard in that formation can charge on the turn they deep strike. The IC is not a vanguard in that formation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.

Nope. Because the permission to charge doesn't extend to an attached IC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.

We seem to be getting into strawman territory, but whatever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Similarly Assault vehicle (an advanced rule) vs running and charging (a basic rule). If I run having disembarked, may I charge?

Ignoring our corsair debate for a moment. that's actually an interesting point. The way it's worded, assault vehicles just give units a general permission to charge.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or, in fact, do I need permission to,override another restriction?

The trouble is, the Assault Vehicle rule isn't worded to bypass just one specific restriction (it doesn't even mention one). Nor does it contain any clauses that the unit must still fulfil all other requirements of assault. All it says is that you you can charge on the turn you disembarked, unless the vehicle arrived from reserve that turn. Almost certainly not the intention but RAW it looks like you can indeed run and still charge after disembarking from an assault vehicle. The only exception would be if you either arrived from reserve that turn or if something more specific (such as a codex special rule) prevents you from charging.

 vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.

So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?

The Vanguard in that formation can charge on the turn they deep strike. The IC is not a vanguard in that formation.

Neither are the Veterans and Sergeant, Vanguard Veteran Squads.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.

Nope. Because the permission to charge doesn't extend to an attached IC.

No less than Stubborn extends to the IC.

But we already have a huge thread running on this concept, and has little to do with Detachment construction.

So can you not legally take 2 corsair CADs?

Charistoph wrote:
Neither are the Veterans and Sergeant, Vanguard Veteran Squads.

It just says 'The vanguard in this formation'. Are you saying the sergeant and veterans aren't vanguard?

Charistoph wrote:
No less than Stubborn extends to the IC.

Stubborn does say "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...".

 jokerkd wrote:
So can you not legally take 2 corsair CADs?

You can take 2 Corsair CADs. They both have to have a Corsair Prince, one of which has to be chosen as your Warlord. Those detachments also count each other as Desperate Allies.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Neither are the Veterans and Sergeant, Vanguard Veteran Squads.

It just says 'The vanguard in this formation'. Are you saying the sergeant and veterans aren't vanguard?

Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.

Charistoph wrote:
No less than Stubborn extends to the IC.

Stubborn does say "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...".

It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?

Charistoph wrote:

Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.

This is the quote I was given to work with:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.

If it's incorrect, feel free to post the proper one.

Charistoph wrote:
It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?

When did I say we shouldn't?

Moreover, how is that part in any way relevant to what we were discussing?

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.

This is the quote I was given to work with:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.

If it's incorrect, feel free to post the proper one.

Interesting, in the other big thread they said, '...On Target: "Vanguard veteran squad from this formation can charge on turn they arrive from deepstrike. In addition, they do not scatter...etc". ' I don't know where it is from or which Formation it is in.

Still I don''t know of any Vanguard entities in the game aside from the unit by that name. The models are listed as "Veteran" and "Veteran Sergeant" in this unit, not as Vanguard.

If Blood of Kittens has this right, it is, "…On Target: Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike...." for the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation, which is in the Kauyon book.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?

When did I say we shouldn't?

It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.

 vipoid wrote:
Moreover, how is that part in any way relevant to what we were discussing?

Got me, I was just pointing out an error in interpretation and I also pointed out this has nothing to do with army list construction.

I have the book in front of me. The Formation is the Shadowstrike Kill Team from Warzone Damocles: Kauyon. The actual quote is...

"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."

The Formation list, which as we all know lists the Army List Entries required for a Formation is as such...

"2-4 Scout Squads"
"1-3 Vanguard Veteran Squads"

So, the "...On Target" rule is absolutely referring to the unit and not individual models from the unit.

Now that we have the real rules, feel free to continue bickering.

Well, in that case, I guess it comes down to whether there's any difference between a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation, and a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation with an attached IC not from that formation.

Leaving aside for now the 'firing a rapid-fire weapon' aspect, are ICs usually allowed to benefit from the On Target rule?

Charistoph wrote:
It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.

I just thought I'd save myself some typing by only quoting the relevant bit. Put it down to laziness on my part.

 vipoid wrote:
Well, in that case, I guess it comes down to whether there's any difference between a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation, and a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation with an attached IC not from that formation.

Leaving aside for now the 'firing a rapid-fire weapon' aspect, are ICs usually allowed to benefit from the On Target rule?

Charistoph wrote:
It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.

I just thought I'd save myself some typing by only quoting the relevant bit. Put it down to laziness on my part.

I don't think there is a difference. The Vanguard Veteran Squad is still the Vanguard Veteran Squad whether or not an IC or two have joined OR a few Veterans have died. The Unit is still the Unit.

Fair enough then.

So, again

VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge

Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place

Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.

AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?

Yes or No. No further disesembling please.

Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.

Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction

The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill. SHow permission to break the rule. 10th time of asking. Note, you would need wording such as "if there is no suitable unit for him to be attached to, he can be fielded alone" or similar. Of course, that doesnt exist, so good luck finding the permission required!