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.

 gmaleron wrote:
And you are correct you do not have to have the rule to benifit from a Special rule, however that Special Rule has to state that it effects IC's (or as mentioned states that it provides the rules benifit to the unit in its specific form) as per how IC's interact with Special Rules in the Rulebook.

And that is the one thing I keep pointing out that you simply refuse to accept: The rule you're refering to only limits how Special Rules can be confered (=given) to ICs. It does not state anything about the effects or benefits of Special Rules. This is why we are telling you to stop mixing "confer" and "benefit" and why we disregard your argument.

If I've offended you by telling you to bring a rulebook with you in a rather unfriendly way, I apologize for the tone I used.

gmaleron wrote:"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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

For all your confering, effect ect. argument it still doesnt change the fact that IC's cannot benifit from Special Rules unless it is stated in some way, shape or form and you have yet to disprove that. IC's have an additional clause to aquiring a Special Rule that they do not already come with, anyone who thinks they can add any IC to a Formation and get a free Special Rule is cheating.

The rule you quoted literally only tells you about how you may or may not confer a special rule, nothing else. Please show the rule that says that ICs cannot benefit from or be affected by Special Rules, since your claim seems to be that there is such a rule. The rule you just quoted simply doesn't say that, I'm afraid.

The only thing I got offended at was the fact I had literally typed it up while looking at the Rulebook and walked out the door for work so I was not quoting inaccurate data, i apologize as well for getting snippy as well.

The paragraph I provided above covers that, I fail to see how it doesnt? According to that paragraph in the rulebook it clearly states the Special Rule itself has to be conferred (or according to the definition granted or bestowed) upon the Independent Character in order for him to use it. Now it would be the Special Rule itself to describe how or who could benifit from it depending on what the Special Rule entails in its description. So when breaking it down:

A clearer explanation if I am failing to do so above:

-Specific units from the Army List Entry need to be used for a Formation
-Formations have additional Special Rules
-IC's have to follow certain Guidelines for Special Rules, according to that paragraph the Special Rule has to be conffered upon the Independent Character
-You look at the specific Special Rule (whatever it may be) to see if the IC has the option to receive the benifit of that Special Rule
-If it does not say something along the lines of the IC can recieve the benifit then only the unit itself with the Special Rule can use it.

RAW it seems pretty clear cut to me, also makes 0 sense to believe that characters such as Marneus Calgar, Dante, Farsight ect. could jump into a Formation that they are not apart of to begin with and recieve free Special Rules.

So why do you think an IC cannot use or benefit from a Special Rules unless it is explicity conferred to him?

 gmaleron wrote:
The paragraph I provided above covers that, I fail to see how it doesnt? According to that paragraph in the rulebook it clearly states the Special Rule itself has to be conferred (or according to the definition granted or bestowed) upon the Independent Character in order for him to use it.

But the rule never says that an IC must have a Special Rule for it to be affected by it. It only tells you under which circumstances Special Rules are or aren't confered to ICs.

It never says that a model / IC must have a Special Rule confered upon them for it to be affected by the Special Rule. You do not need to have the Blind SR for it to affect you, nor do you have to have the Shrouded SR to be affected by it. This is true for ANY Special Rule per default as the ruleset would simply fall apart.

All you need is to match the criteria/trigger of the Special Rule: For Blind to affect you, you have to be hit by someone with the Blind SR. For Shrouded to affect you, your unit must contain at least one model that actually has the rule. For Relentless to affect you, the model itself must have the SR.

The rule in question can be presented as: When a unit of Veterans comes in from Deep Strike reserves, it may charge on the turn they arrive. The unit clearly includes any IC that is attached to the unit. And since the rule says (not literally, but very clearly refering to ) the unit gains this benefit, the IC will also be affected. The IC does not, however, have the Special Rule confered upon him.

Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that. I understand what you are trying to present but IC''s cannot join a Formation and get the Formations Special rule, your example of the Veterans being able to assault on the turn they deepstrike is a Special Rule that allows them to.

At that point you have to look at IC's and Special Rules where that paragraph comes in. And if it is like the Sky hammer Assault Formation where it specifically states the Assault Squads as the beneficiaries of the Special Rule then no IC can join and benefit from it unless it states he can. I'm sorry but you are not going to convince me that any random IC can join any Formation and benefit from the rule, that paragraph shows the rule that stills limit it. Thankfully GW and the tournament fields such as ITC agree with me, would be way to many shenanigans and RAW it clearly is that way as well.

Do you not see it yet? Yet again you start off talking about "confer" - the word which appears in the rule - yet talk about "benefit" later. A word which has a different meaning. That does not appear in the rule.

You're wrong. This is beyond the pale now - you have failed to show confer = benefit, you have failed to show that benefit is prohibited, you have failed to show how IDENTICAL RULES are somehow different - shrouded and stealth, identical to skyhammers rule in how models / units benefit - and you keep ignoring where your flaws have been exposed, time and time again

Your argument is old and proven false.

Lol ive proven my point just fine and if you care to read I showed the difference between confer and benefit farther up the page. And i have proven it repeatedly, just because you refuse to believe it or continually ignore what i say is not my problem, claiming your right just because with 0 facts to back it up doesn't make you right. The benefit is provided if it is detailed in the particular Special Rules description and if it doesnt say anything about any added on IC they dont get the rule its that easy.

You are trying to nit pick specific words and searching for loopholes while I have presented RAW proof and evidence to back it up that you have yet to disprove. Sorry you are the mistaken one with the "old and tired" argument and have proven nothing.

Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that.

Sorry I think I missed a quote. Where do the rules say this?

At that point you have to look at IC's and Special Rules where that paragraph comes in. And if it is like the Sky hammer Assault Formation where it specifically states the Assault Squads as the beneficiaries of the Special Rule then no IC can join and benefit from it unless it states he can. I'm sorry but you are not going to convince me that any random IC can join any Formation and benefit from the rule, that paragraph shows the rule that stills limit it. Thankfully GW and the tournament fields such as ITC agree with me, would be way to many shenanigans and RAW it clearly is that way as well. 

The same thing again do you have a quote to support that ICS need to be specifically called out to benefit from or use a Special Rules granted to their unit?

You are aware that ITCbowl is not Warhammer 40,000 right? It is let's makes up a huge host of rules to support the armies the organisers play and nerfed the ones they don't. We'll run vote campaigns to pass this off as not us making them up honest. These campaigns are so biased and filled is clear inaccuracies that political parties would be embarrassed by them...

I understand ITC does change some of the rules however the vast majority touch on particular units and formations with the majority of the core rules intact. Granted it's not the best example however when it comes to rules they know they'really talking about. It is an assumption, however assumptions have been listed above for the counter argument as well.

The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.

Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.

This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.

 gmaleron wrote:
I understand ITC does change some of the rules however the vast majority touch on particular units and formations with the majority of the core rules intact. Granted it's not the best example however when it comes to rules they know they'really talking about. It is an assumption, however assumptions have been listed above for the counter argument as well.

The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.

Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.

Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from.

If you think the ITC guys have a clue about the rules read Reecius' article about coordinated firepower or their ruling on Psychic Shriek. The guys are absolutely clueless and driven by a need to protect their meta rather than actually worrying in anyway about what the actual rules are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.
The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.

So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from

It would depend on the particular special rule in order to answer this question.

So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?

Why would they? The troop choice does not have its special rules affected by the independent character unless the independent character has a special rule that specifically states it affects the unit. They don't share special rules unless the special rule in question specifically states so.

 gmaleron wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry could you quote the relevant part of the rules. The part that states ICs can't benefit or use special rules. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IC in this question actually has the Special Rule conferred to him. So we don't need to worry about any rules that talk about have special rules are conferred or gained. Only ones about how they are used or benefitted from

It would depend on the particular special rule in order to answer this question.

So you think a Troops choice in a CAD loses ObSec whenever it is joined by a non-ObSec IC?

Why would they? The troop choice does not have its special rules affected by the independent character unless the independent character has a special rule that specifically states it affects the unit. They don't share special rules unless the special rule in question specifically states so.

So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?

In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also why would the special rule be required when you've made this claim?

Except it can't because the Special Rules are only presented to the units found in the particular Formation and that paragraph stops IC''s from outside the Formation from taking advantage of that.

I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?

In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.

Correct but TROOP choices from a CAD do not have a special clause like an Independent Character does when dealing with Special Rules. The way it is worded in the rule book (which I am reading out of right now and that paragraph is word for word) in the paragraph above covers that. The TROOP choice still has Objective Secured but the IC attached to the unit does not because the Special Rule Objective Secured does not carry over to the IC in the Special Rules description, its that easy.

I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.

According to the counter argument there is no paragraph, they are basing it off the lack of the phrase "the IC benefits" from the Special Rule or not but as gungo mentioned it clearly states under Detachments Command Benefits that they cannot do so.

Ob sec actually has two rules wording. The original wording in the brb which states only troops. And the recent wording used in current formations that state units. The troop clarification has been superseded imho.

Furthermore models always retain thier unit datasheet rules. An HQ independant character is still an HQ model. If a rule gives you an extra victory point for killing an HQ you would still get the victory point regardless of which unit the IC is attached too.

Technically the definition of benefit doesn't exist in the rulebook. If an HQ is within 3in of an objective and no other model from his ob sec unit is within 3in. And there is an enemy model within 3in. I would say he does contest the obj. However I believe there is a difference between the generic term unit and a specific unit name such as when the rules are written to specifically call out an exact squad name and not say unit for a reason. This is why rules like stubborn use the generic unit term and rules like skyhammer or the ravenguard one uses the specific unit name.

However I don't need to argue these sementics since General concensus agrees with me and nearly every rules clarification body don't share rules with IC unless it specifically states they gain the rules. Oddly just how the brb states it.

gungo wrote:
However I don't need to argue these sementics since General concensus agrees with me and nearly every rules clarification body don't share rules with IC unless it specifically states they gain the rules. Oddly just how the brb states it.

So only Stubborn? Since that is the only one that we are told specifically gets shared?

Gungo you believe that there is a difference between a rule that refers to merely the unit as opposed to a rule that refers to that unit's name? Do you have any rules support for this?

There is no rules definition of benefit and our argument does not require one. The rules are written in English so we are using English. A rule stating X can have or gain Y, isn't the same as a rule saying X can't use or benefit from Y.

For instance let's say I am a spoiled 12 year old whose parents will buy me anything I want. I can use money to get anything I want but I don't have any money. Now let's say I use that money to buy myself a car. I now have a car but am still unable to use it myself. Conflating conferring/gaining/having with using/benefitting from/taking advantage of etc is not English and not supported by the rules unless they specifically define those things as the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if a unit has a special rule that allows the unit to charge after arriving by deepatrike can it do so when it has an IC attached. I'm thinking for instance specifically in the case of the skyhammer rule for ASMs? Or for another example say a unit of troops from a CAD was within 3" of an objective would they still control that objective despite there being an enemy nonObSec unit within 3" if they had an IC attached?

In both cases the unit receives a benefit in a certain circumstances and the IC does not have the relevant special rule.

Correct but TROOP choices from a CAD do not have a special clause like an Independent Character does when dealing with Special Rules. The way it is worded in the rule book (which I am reading out of right now and that paragraph is word for word) in the paragraph above covers that. The TROOP choice still has Objective Secured but the IC attached to the unit does not because the Special Rule Objective Secured does not carry over to the IC in the Special Rules description, its that easy.

I'm asking for the paragraph referenced here. Which is paragraph talking about how ICs take advantage of special rules not how they gain them.

According to the counter argument there is no paragraph, they are basing it off the lack of the phrase "the IC benefits" from the Special Rule or not but as gungo mentioned it clearly states under Detachments Command Benefits that they cannot do so.

So do you have the quote or not? You made a claim I've asked you for the quote please. You can either say that your claim was false and you don't have a quote to support it. Or provide the quote. Failing either of these two actions is very impolite and will not help progress the discussion.

Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:

Detachments Page 118:

"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment

Command Benefits Page 121:

This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.

Formations Page 121:

Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. 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.

So according to this:

-Formations have a specific army list entry that they have to choose from and those specific units gain a number of special rules
-A Formation is type of DETACHMENT
-Any Character taken outside the Formation would belong to A DIFFERENT DETACHMENT
-According to the rule above he CANNOT BELONG TO MORE THEN ONE DETACHMENT and cannot gain another Detachments Command Benefits.
-Command Benefits list the Special Rules or Benefits for that particular Detachment.

This alone proves that you cannot take an IC From outside the Formation and run him with the Formation to get their Special Rules.

gungo wrote:
This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.
And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.

Again: Quotes, please.

3) Command Benefits
This lists any additional bonuses or special rules that apply to some, or all, of the units in this Detachment.

Nope

As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.

Nope

COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules. If a Detachment or Force Organisation Chart does not list any Command Benefits then the units that make it up receive no additional benefits.

Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.

That were the three most relevant lines from the BRB I was able to find and none of these seem to support your claim.




@gmaleron: It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.

nekooni wrote:
Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.

What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong, as clearly stated on page 118 of the rulebook:

Detachments Page 118:

"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment.

Can he join units from another Detachment? Yes he can. Can he get the Command Benefits (which include Special Rules as PER WHAT THE RULEBOOK SAYS)? No he cannot because they belong to a different Detachment. On top of that you are yet again ignoring how an Independent Character interacts with Special Rules, unless the Special Rule itself states he can benefit from it some way he does not get it, but as I have already proven it doesn't eve need to get to that point in this case.

Psst nekooni look at the post above yours
Gmaleron is spot on and quoted directly from the rule book instead of making up stuff like the majority of you guys do. Seriously the word benefit is not a rule in the brb. Why do you guys insist on making up rules that don't exist.

That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.

IC is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.

undermines the whole of your argument

Confer != benefit. I do not need to HAVE the rule in order to BENEFIT from the rule

This is proven. Your concession that you cannot provide a rules quote for anything you claim is noted, as you have been asked and found wanting at every turn.

 gmaleron wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.

What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.

quoting myself, i edited my post to answer you:

It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.

 gmaleron wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.

What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.

Not once joined. Building a list is when detachments are important. Once joined which is after the game starts, rules on detachments are irrelevant. If you disagree, I presume as soon as one to marine of give dies, you declare the list illegal? It's the exact same argument.

It proves nothing about your argument, as you hav a critics, misunderstanding of how the rules work. Noticed that since your lies about confer and benefit bring the same were exposed you have tried to come up with a new argument...that still fails.

 gmaleron wrote:
Im going to read everything word for word from the Rule Book:

Detachments Page 118:

"However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment

Well you've changed at least one word in that quote because that makes no sense in English. So you might want to have another go at that. However no one is claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 detachment other than you.

Command Benefits Page 121:

This section of the Detachments lists any Special Rules or benefits that apply to some or all models in that Detachment. For Example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured Special Rules.

Formations Page 121:

Formations are a Special Type of Detachment, each specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. 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.

Cool none of this disagrees with our position.

So according to this:

-Formations have a specific army list entry that they have to choose from and those specific units gain a number of special rules
-A Formation is type of DETACHMENT
-Any Character taken outside the Formation would belong to A DIFFERENT DETACHMENT

Correct and when he's join to a unit how many Detachments does that combined unit belong to? Which Detachment(s) does it belong to?

-According to the rule above he CANNOT BELONG TO MORE THEN ONE DETACHMENT and cannot gain another Detachments Command Benefits.

According to English the first half of that sentence doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify what you mean? The 2nd half seems to not be in any of your quotes. Could you provide the quote that lead to that statement?

-Command Benefits lists and Special Rules or Benefits.

This alone proves that you cannot take an IC From outside the Formation and run him with the Formation to get their Special Rules.

We all agree the IC from outside the Formation doesn't get the Formation special rules this is undisputed so why state it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That's a load of unsupported leaps, and yet again confusing command benefits - which detachments have - and what formations lack. Note what unbound says about command benefits vs the special rules of formations, if you want to understand the difference.

You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you've changed at least one word in that quote because that makes no sense in English. So you might want to have another go at that. However no one is claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 detachment other than you.

That is Word for Word from the Rulebook, so I haven't changed anything.

Cool none of this disagrees with our position.

It does, it states that the Special Rules only effect the models (all or some) in that particular Detachment.

Correct and when he's join to a unit how many Detachments does that combined unit belong to? Which Detachment(s) does it belong to?

It would be an IC from one Detachment and a unit from a Formation, this is what the argument is all about.

According to English the first half of that sentence doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify what you mean? The 2nd half seems to not be in any of your quotes. Could you provide the quote that lead to that statement?

I was referencing what I wrote above, in this case page 118

We all agree the IC from outside the Formation doesn't get the Formation special rules this is undisputed so why state it?

We all don't agree, the other people have been arguing that you CAN get the Formations Special Rules if not originally apart of the Formation.

You are WRONG the IC unless taken in the FORMATION is from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT, it clearly states on page 118 that a unit from a DIFFERNT DETACHMENT cannot benefit or gain the Special Rules from another Detachment, and a Formation is listed as another Detachment. You have NOTHING to stand on.

So what Detachment(s) does the combined IC and squad unit belong to?

Can you please provide a quote to support the underlined you've stated that twice now and I can see it in the rules?

gmaleron wrote:The rule I'm referring to comes from the IC page in regard to 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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Taking that into account when you look at a formation you will see that they have to take specific units listed in the army list entry in order to run the formation. Those units then get additional special rules. At that point you have to look at independent characters and how they deal with special rules which the above paragraph details. According to what is listed under independent characters unless the special rule says it confers to the independent character they do not get the special rule, to me there's no room for interpretation at that point.

Now some points have been brought up in regards to it not stating that the IC cannot benefit from the special rule. At that point you would have to read the specific special rule to see what it entails as it is the only place to answer that question. If the special rule says that independent characters from outside the formation can get the special rule or something along the lines of all models in a unit or the unit is affected by the said special rule then he would be able to get the special rule.

To me you keep ignoring one key portion of that rule you keep quoting. When you bold it to highlight it, you keep skipping the important part where it provides and example. Here let me show you:

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 units Special Rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character and the Independent Characters Special Rules are not conferred upon the unit."

So, we have a rule that says ICs do not have the special rules conferred on them, or in other words, do not have the special rules "granted or bestowed" upon them (using the Oxford online dictionary, how much more British can you get?). Yet, it does provide an exception if it specifies as in the Stubborn Special Rule.

Well, let's review the Stubborn Special Rule for how it confers on the IC:
"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."

Hmm, no mention of conferring (or any of its synonyms) or Independent Character exists in this rule. So how then does an IC not have its Leadership negatively affected while in a Stubborn unit? He doesn't get it. It is not bestowed or conferred upon him, yet the IC rule specifically points this rule out as the IC as the example of how an IC does get the rule from a unit (or vice versa).

The only possible solution is to review another portion of a rule and the target of the Stubborn Special Rule. From Joining and Leaving a Unit in the IC rules:"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." What is the target of the Stubborn rule? A unit that is somehow carrying the rule.

Then we continue on to Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects which states:
"Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.

Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared."

Which indicates that Special Rules that affect a unit that the IC has joined WILL be affected as well, even if the IC leaves the group afterward. 92% of the unique rules provided by Formations are rules that have a Trigger and an effect, such as "When a unit with this special rule arrives from Deep Strike Reserves, it may Charge in the next Assault Phase." If the IC is with the unit when this Trigger occurs, it receives the beneficial effect from the rule just as much as it would be disabled if the unit was hit with a Blind Attack. Conversely, if the IC joins after the trigger, it is not affected.

So say you have a Vanguard unit with this Formation rule to charge and you have Marneus Calgar both waiting in Deep Strike Reserves as separate units and they both roll to come in on the same turn. You Deep Strike in the Vanguard unit, and seeing an opportunity for this unit to have even more punch, you Deep Strike Marneus Calgar in to Coherency with the unit (you gutsy player you) with no Mishaps. The Vanguard unit has fulfilled the conditions of its rule and the Trigger is activated and the unit receives the benefit. Calgar is not part of this unit when it happens as he arrives later and isn't considered a member of the unit till the end of the Movement Phase. This unit will not be able to charge because Calgar does not have any permission or Special Rule effect to override the Deep Strike and Reserves conditions.

BUT, if Calgar is in the Vanguard unit from deployment and Deep Strikes with the unit, he receives the benefit of the rule since he was a member of the unit when it received the effect of the Special Rule.

Do you see the difference?

gungo wrote:This whole benefit argument doesn't exist in the rulebook.

Actually it does, I just quoted it and have referenced it at least a couple times in this thread.

gungo wrote:There is two problems the people claiming the fact the IC rules don't mean anything are just ignoring the can't share special rules line.

I'm going to say bull crap on this since those who say ICs cannot have special rules shared are ignoring the exception and how it works.

gungo wrote:And the fact the rules for command benefits on detachments (which a formation is) specifically says models not in the formation do not benefit from special rules of the formation. What the vanguard squad has is w command benefit directly targeting the vanguard squad.

Now that IS bull crap. Command Benefit rules state no such thing:
"COMMAND BENEFITS
This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that Detachment. For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

If a Detachment or Force Organisation Chart does not list any Command Benefits then the units that make it up receive no additional benefits."

I see no place where a joined IC from another detachment are specifically exempted any more than any other interaction between ICs and units. The only limitations between detachments involves the Ally relationship, and Battle Brother rules do not provide any such exemption, either. The other levels of alliance do, but that is because they prevent the joining in the first place.

gungo wrote:The same people argue this same argument over and over however they are the loudest the general consensus is (as in majority since no one plays this way in any official venue) independsnt characters do not share, benefit or whatever word these people make up special rules unless otherwise stated. Just use ITC or some other main rules system it completely removes arguing with those people who try to skirt the rules and rules lawyer to thier advantage. It's not worth arguing with these people who just make a game into an argument.

Define "official venue". If you mean tournaments? They are chock full of House Rules to begin with and do not represent any official release from Games Workshop. They operate on a perception of balance (both accurate and flawed), not on how the rules actually operate.

But if you insist on this avenue than a Chapter Master in Power/Artificier Armour who is in a Centurion Squad cannot move and fire his Orbital Barrage because he does not have Slow and Purposeful cannot benefit from it. A Blood Angel Captain in a Dark Angel Tactical Squad will have his Leadership reduced when a failed Combat Phase forces them to make a Morale Check as he does not have Stubborn nor can benefit from it. A Pain Boy does not give Feel No Pain to a Boyz unit he is in. And so on.

There is no notable difference between a Universal Special Rule, a Datasheet Special Rule, and a Command Benefit when it comes to interactions between ICs and units in the rulebook. None. The specific rule may have exceptions, requirements, or not even include the unit in its benefits, to which the IC will not be affected since he does not have the rule.

Apart from rules at list building have no effect once the game starts.

Once the IC joins, the IC unit ceases to exist. This is proven
Thus he is a normal member of the it for all rules purposes. This is proven
Thus the joined unit remains a unit from the formation
Thus the unit retains the benefit of the rule
Thus the IC, along with every model in the it, benefits from the rule without needing to possess the rule - as onky the unit does

This is all proven. This is all factual, nothing in y our argument is. You CONTINUALLY conflate confer/possess and benefit as if they are the same, and despite being REPEATEDLY called on it you are either blind to your own typing, or wilfully ignoring. Either way, you are not arguing honestly

Accepting gracefully that you are wrong would be a help. Oh, and no one here cas what the itc think. They make up,rules all the time, failing to,ever actually note when they have changed a rule.

nekooni wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Close, but still "nope" since this section still talks about units and, as we already know, attached ICs are part of the unit. Is this section inconsistent since it jumps from model to unit? Yepp. Does that help your argument? Nope.

What do you mean nope? That is WORD FOR WORD FROM THE RULEBOOK and yes it PROVES MY ARGUMENT!!! Are you serious? The fact that the Independent Character would have to come from a DIFFERENT DETACHMENT then the Formation alone proves that he could not benefit from the Formations Special Rules because the Formation is a different Detachment. Im sorry buddy but you are clearly wrong.

quoting myself, i edited my post to answer you:

It is not a case of "the IC gains this Special Rule / is confered this special rule". It is still him benefitting from e.g. Shrouded while being part of a unit with a model with Shrouded. Even if that unit gained Shrouded through a formations Special Rule (I think the Ravenwing has such a thing, not sure though). Same applies to other effects created by special rules.

Where is this benefit word. I keep looking in the rule book but it doesn't exist as a rule. I look under the special rules section and no where does it say you can benefit from rules you don't have access too. My question is why do you continue to make up rules? You can not benefit from a special rule unless you have access to that special rule. Which means you need to gain a special rule such as a unit directly conferring it in order to benefit from it. This is why none of you can explain why the independant character restriction directly limits sharing of special rules unless specified.