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:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So being general seems to confuse you so I'll try to be more specific. We have an IC From a CAD. It joins an Assault Squad from a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. What Detachment is the combined unit from?

Lol no I am just fine when it comes to tactics and overall strategy, it is your English and line of questioning that is difficult to understand. As I stated earlier:

-It is x2 Detachments, nothing stops an IC from joining the unit from another detachment as long as they are battle brothers.
-The fact that they are part of x2 Detachments means that the IC cannot benefit from the units Command Benefits (Special Rules)

How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?

Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?

 FlingitNow wrote:

How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?

Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?

Clearly there is because you refuse to listen to what I have said to you repeatedly.

Page 118 clearly states:
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

All this means is that a unit has to belong to a Detachment of some kind when creating a Battle Forged Army, it cannot be the HQ choice for two different detachments is what it means. It says nothing about not being able to join another unit from a different Detachment if they are Battle Brothers.

This thread appears to have exhausted its usefulness.

gmaleron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Gmaleron - so again, IC from cad joins unit from formation
The combined unit is a) from one detachment or b) from two detachments ? A or b. Pick one
Have you read the rule stating that the IC is a normal member of the unit yet?
IC unit from cad joins formation. IC Unit CEASES to exist. IC model is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes.
And we're done. The unit is allowed to benefit from its special rules. (Not command benefits. Have you bothered to understand the difference yet??? A implies B does not mean B implies A. That's a logical fallacy YOU are committing, not GW. GW never said what you are claiming, so stop pretending otherwise). The IC, as a normal member, also benefits
There is no rule disallowing this, and the special rule in question permits it.
Done. Proven. Old argument, disproven every time. Confer != benefit.

Wrong wrong wrong yet again you are ignoring rules to suit your own needs, here we go again:

Sigh. No, not at all. I notice you couldnt answer the simple question - care to give it another go?

Is the unit from ONE or TWO detachments? A simple question requiring a simple, straightforward answer. Your continued evasion is a sign of dishonest argumentation, so it wouldbe appreciated if you could manage to support your argument, for once.

gmaleron wrote:
-It would be a unit from 2 different detachments, which if you were to READ THE RULES you would see that a unit from one Detachment cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of another Detachment.

Wrong. IC joins a unit, it ceases to exist as a unit in itself. There is just ONE unit, and the ONE unit belongs to ONE detachment.

Cite: Page 166
"..., he again becomes a unit of one model..."

Meaning while with the formation-unit, he was NOT a unit by himself. As the detachment rules are to do with Units, the rule you cited can have no effect.

PRoven. Your argument is dismissed.

gmaleron wrote:
-Yes I have read the rule however you are forgetting about the fact it is a different Detachment
-You are also forgetting about the rule which I have quoted stating that unless the Special Rule says it affects the Independent Character he does not benefit from it, but it doesn't matter because he is from a different Detachment.

THe IC UNIT, which no longer exists, may be from a different detachment. However the IC MODEL, while within the formation-unit, is a normal member ofthe unit, for all rules purposes. What part of "all rules purposes" is causing the issue here? Its a very straighforward rule.

Similarly the rule on page 166, which you quoted, does not say, anywhere, the word benefit . It says the word "confer". Now, as you are [b]very well aware by now, confer and benefit are not the same word, and do not have the same meaning

Thus, the only person twisting words to suit their own needs, is you

You are arguing dishonestly. Dont.

gmaleron wrote:You are twisting words to suit you own needs, Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits for Detachments which a Formation is a type of Detachment. Done and done, no argument or leg to stand on to support your claims.

Some special rules are command benefits. Not ALL special rules are command benefits. Can you understand the difference yet? Again, it would be helpful if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you are making, by saying A->B means B->A . Do you understand "logical fallacy", or the specific instance of excluded middle you are committing here? Its a common trap, but its been pointed out SO OFTEN now, I presume you ignore it, simply because it "benefits" (see, not confers - its like the words are fdifferent!) your argument.

WHich is again, arguing dishonestly. Now, while that doesnt in itself make your argument incorrect - the fallacy fallacy - it doesnt exactly make your argument credible, does it?

 gmaleron wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

How do you reconcile that with page 118 which states the answer must not be more than 1 detachment?

Also there was nothing wrong with my English. If you can't understand clear English then perhaps arguing semantics on rules shouldn't be something you engage in?

Clearly there is because you refuse to listen to what I have said to you repeatedly.

Page 118 clearly states:
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

All this means is that a unit has to belong to a Detachment of some kind when creating a Battle Forged Army, it cannot be the HQ choice for two different detachments is what it means. It says nothing about not being able to join another unit from a different Detachment if they are Battle Brothers.

Sorry you seem to be struggling more than I realised. When the IC joins the ASM squad, is that combined collection of models a unit (and therefore governed by unit rules like being targeted by enemy shooting, unit coherency, making a shooting attack etc)?

DCannon4Life wrote:
This thread appears to have exhausted its usefulness.

the corect answer was given on page one. Since then we've just had posters who cant seem to help but use the word "benefit" when the rule states "confer", and seem to think they have the same meaning.

Its quite difficult to constructively argue when that level of self deception is going on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, not at all. I notice you couldnt answer the simple question - care to give it another go?

If you knew how to read you will see I answered your question earlier, go back and read.

Wrong. IC joins a unit, it ceases to exist as a unit in itself. There is just ONE unit, and the ONE unit belongs to ONE detachment.
Cite: Page 166
"..., he again becomes a unit of one model...

Meaning while with the formation-unit, he was NOT a unit by himself. As the detachment rules are to do with Units, the rule you cited can have no effect.
PRoven. Your argument is dismissed.

WRONG, on page 166 it reads:

"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"

So the he now counts as part of the unit EXCEPT when it comes to Special Rules as stated on both page 166 and 118 several times that you continue to ignore to try and prove your argument. Sorry, you cant ignore all of that and still say you are right.

Some special rules are command benefits. Not ALL special rules are command benefits. Can you understand the difference yet? Again, it would be helpful if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you are making, by saying A->B means B->A . Do you understand "logical fallacy", or the specific instance of excluded middle you are committing here? Its a common trap, but its been pointed out SO OFTEN now, I presume you ignore it, simply because it "benefits" (see, not confers - its like the words are fdifferent!) your argument. WHich is again, arguing dishonestly. Now, while that doesnt in itself make your argument incorrect - the fallacy fallacy - it doesnt exactly make your argument credible, does it?

The fact that Special Rules are listed under Command Benefits in regards to Detachments proves your point wrong since a Formation is a type of Detachment, nice try.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry you seem to be struggling more than I realised. When the IC joins the ASM squad, is that combined collection of models a unit (and therefore governed by unit rules like being targeted by enemy shooting, unit coherency, making a shooting attack etc)?

Apparently you finally learned to ask a different question, congrats on expanding on your English! They count as a single unit, however since they are made up from models of x2 Detachments it means that the IC cannot benefit from the Formations Special Rules (Command Benefits) that are given to the units that make up the Formation.

So gmaleron does the IC unit still exist whilst joined to another unit? Can I still target the IC unit with shooting, Psychic and close combat attacks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apparently you finally learned to ask a different question, congrats on expanding on your English! They count as a single unit, 

Right and what Detachment is that single unit from? Remembering you now accept it is 1 unit and page 118 states that 1 unit can only ever belong to 1 Detachment.

So you didnt read my citation, stating he "again" becomes a unit of one model? Even though its from page 166? And I quoted it?

If you "again" become a unit of one model, you cannot have been a unit "before". When was "before"? When he was joined, as that is the context.

I am not lying

REPORTED for rule 1. I will also ask for a modlock, as you have failed to adhere to the tenets.

SPecial RUles / Command Benefits.

Again, you are claiming that because Command Benefits CAN list special rules, that ALL special rules are Command Benefits. Which is just wrong. I am sorry you do not undetrstand that at all.

I'm out. There is only so much banging against a brick wall that I can stand. Good day.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So gmaleron does the IC unit still exist whilst joined to another unit? Can I still target the IC unit with shooting, Psychic and close combat attacks?

Depends on the weapon being used like Sniper Rifles or the type of Psychic Powers but then it falls to closest to closest model so he does exist to some degree, none of this addresses how he deals with Special Rules however or the fact he is from a different Detachment so its null and void.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Right and what Detachment is that single unit from? Remembering you now accept it is 1 unit and page 118 states that 1 unit can only ever belong to 1 Detachment.

I answered it above im not answering it again, read what I said please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you didnt read my citation, stating he "again" becomes a unit of one model? Even though its from page 166? And I quoted it? If you "again" become a unit of one model, you cannot have been a unit "before". When was "before"? When he was joined, as that is the context.

It follows the rule as listed on page 166 however he still follows the rules for characters which you ignored.

I am not lying

REPORTED for rule 1. I will also ask for a modlock, as you have failed to adhere to the tenets.

You are just as guilty and go ahead and report, you are as well for your immature egotistical behavior and your inability to listen to others opinions.

SPecial RUles / Command Benefits.
Again, you are claiming that because Command Benefits CAN list special rules, that ALL special rules are Command Benefits. Which is just wrong. I am sorry you do not undetrstand that at all.
I'm out. There is only so much banging against a brick wall that I can stand. Good day.

You are just upset that I proved you wrong and have nothing to show for it. If you cared to read what I said you would have seen that I even said that not all Special Rules are not Command Benefits, however those Special Rules that are given to specific units for being apart of a Formation (a type of Detachment) are Command Benefits as stated on page 121. Good riddance, I feel sorry for people you are continuing to take advantage of with your butchering of this rule.

Here is where I am struggling to get a definitive answer from this thread.

Camp A states:
"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" 


Camp B states:
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." 

Which one is right? Camp A is claiming that "all rules purposes" also applies to special rules. However, my initial reaction would be that "all rules purposes" applies to movement, shooting, targeting a unit, going to ground etc. When it comes to special rules, we go to the Camp B line. It clearly states that unless otherwise specified, special rules are NOT conferred to ICs. This line is pretty clear cut to me. How do you explain away this line? If the special rule does not explicitly say it confers to the IC, the IC does not get it. No where in the ...On Target rule does it say that it applies to ICs. It just says Vanguard Veteran Squads from this formation can charge from Deep Strike. You always read on this forum that "this is a permissive rule set." I have a line that says unless stated otherwise, an IC does not get this rule. I cannot find anything that over rides this rule.

It then references Stubborn. Stubborn has a line that says "if one model in the unit has stubborn..." which is the permission to give the entire unit stubborn.

Forgive me for not having the rulebook in front of me, but if a unit has Fleet, does an IC gain fleet? I though fleet was an all or nothing special rule. As was infiltrate.
Rules that were one model has it, they all get it were stealth, stubborn, slow and puposeful.

This is by no means an all inclusive list. But, this line of logic leads me to believe that an IC could arrive from reserves, join a unit on the board, and then charge. This is because "the IC unit ceases to exit, etc" and is now part of the unit on the board. This would not be allowed.

P.S. I play Raven Guard and would love to make this work. However, when I looked at the rule, I thought "no attaching characters to this unit to pull this off." As the X-Files say "I want to believe."

Still following the rules for characters != still their own unit. That's not even close.

You're claiming they are their own unit. Which is false.

Depends on the weapon being used like Sniper Rifles or the type of Psychic Powers but then it falls to closest to closest model so he does exist to some degree, none of this addresses how he deals with Special Rules however or the fact he is from a different Detachment so its null and void.

No those things effect wound allocation. I'm talking about normal target selection as clearly given by the context of unit level rules. Care to actually answer the question? Can my say Ork Loota mob still pick the IC unit as a legal target for shooting?

I also note you still can't answer the question of what single Detachment the combined unit comes from? You agreed it is a single unit so page 118 forces you to pick 1 Detachment and entire destroys your 2 detachment claim from earlier. So what Detachment is the combined ASM & IC unit from earlier part of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Green is Best. Does camp B's quote state that an IC can not be effected by a special rule from his unit? As that is the claim Camp B are making. A long with claiming a unit can belong to more than 1 Detachment despite page 118 proving this can't be the case. Whilst lately it has been getting even weirder as they claim the IC unit still exists as a separate entity which means you can still target it individually...

 Green is Best! wrote:
Here is where I am struggling to get a definitive answer from this thread.
Camp A states:
"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" 
Camp B states:
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."

They are both listed on page 166 in the Rulebook in separate sections, what you listed as "Camp A" is how the IC interacts with the unit he is with. What you listed as "Camp B" is how the IC deals with Special Rules. 

It then references Stubborn. Stubborn has a line that says "if one model in the unit has stubborn..." which is the permission to give the entire unit stubborn.

Correct this is a case of the Special Rule in question being able to effect the IC attached to the unit.

Forgive me for not having the rulebook in front of me, but if a unit has Fleet, does an IC gain fleet? I though fleet was an all or nothing special rule. As was infiltrate.
Rules that were one model has it, they all get it were stealth, stubborn, slow and puposeful.
This is by no means an all inclusive list. But, this line of logic leads me to believe that an IC could arrive from reserves, join a unit on the board, and then charge. This is because "the IC unit ceases to exit, etc" and is now part of the unit on the board. This would not be allowed.
P.S. I play Raven Guard and would love to make this work. However, when I looked at the rule, I thought "no attaching characters to this unit to pull this off." As the X-Files say "I want to believe."

To answer your question Fleet states: "A unit composed entirely of models with this Special Rule can re-roll one or more of the dice when determining Run moves and charge ranges (such as a single D6 from a charge range roll for example" so the IC would have to have Fleet as well in order to be able to use it. The fact that he would have to be apart of the same Detachment (a Formation is a kind of Detachment) to benefit from the Special Rules means he could not join a unit from a Formation and benefit from their Special Rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still following the rules for characters != still their own unit. That's not even close.
You're claiming they are their own unit. Which is false.

It is not false, they are there own unit unless attached to a unit and then they have to follow the rules described on page 166 regarding Special Rules as they still follow rules for characters, its that easy. On top of that they are STILL from different Detachments, something you have not yet proven false once.

In regards to Flingitnow he seems to think I have not answered his question (which I have a few times already):

They come from 2 different detachments, again 2 different detachments, page 118 does not force you to pick one detachment you are not understanding the point I am trying to make. An Independent Character can join units from other Detachments if those units are made up of Battle Brothers there is nothing preventing that. What he CANNOT do is benefit from their Special Rules as he has to follow the rules for characters on page 166 and for detachments on page 118.

The IC model still exists and that is why it retains the IC special rule and can trigger things like LoS and leaving the unit. The IC unit can not exist because of the quote now provided, likewise if ghetto IC unit did exist then it could be targeted separately by example shooting attacks.

The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment.

Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.

No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.

Again you claim a single unit can come from 2 different detachments despite page 118 literally saying the opposite.

So since you freely admit that your interpretation disagrees with the rules how can you claim it is RAW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.

No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.

So is the rulebook correct or false when it says that a unit can only ever belong to one detachment?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again you claim a single unit can come from 2 different detachments despite page 118 literally saying the opposite.

So since you freely admit that your interpretation disagrees with the rules how can you claim it is RAW?

You are not understanding at all, my interpretation is not disagreeing with the rules at all you need to read carefully and try and understand. Page 118 states:

Page 118 clearly states:
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"

This means that when creating a Battle Forged army each unit must belong to a Detachment of some kind, for example a CAD or a Formation. It does not state anywhere that Characters cannot join units in different detachments, this is allowed if both Detachments are from the same Faction or are Battle Brothers in the Allied Matrix. You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.

When the rule says a unit cannot belong to 2 different detachments it means that an IC cannot be picked as an HQ choice for both the Formation and the CAD for example, he has to go to one detachment or the other.

Okay, Ignoring all the arguments and issues cropping up in the last few pages about detachments and ICs.

Here is the scenario.

Vanguard Veterans from Shadowstrike (formation that allows them to assault)

A chaplain has joined the unit before deepstrike.

1.
The unit
Vanguard Veterans Unit:
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain

This is the Unit

All of the Vanguard Veterans have to "on target" special rule.
2.
So the rules look like this.
Vanguard Veteran 1 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 2 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 3 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran 4 "on target"
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant "on target"
Chaplain "zealot"

Note, the Chaplain does not get the "on target" rule

The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault.

As we see above the unit consists of :

Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain

So this unit may assault. As an IC is part of the unit for all purposes, the Chaplain may asssault.

The chaplain never got the "on target" rule. But may still assault.

Another example is like above but zealot.

The chaplain doesn't give the Vanguard Veterans models Zealot.
However the "Zealot" rule says, "at unit with at least one model with this special rule has fearless and hatred"

Neither the Vanguard models, or the Chaplain give each other their special rules. However the rules target the "unit" which as per the IC rules, the IC is a part of.

So the unit targeted is :
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain

So are you now claiming when an IC joins another unit your army stops being battleforged?

You agree Marneus in the Skyhammer ASM squad is 1 unit.

Page 118 says (which once again you misquote) "However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment"

So how can a unit belonging to two Detachments not break that rule?

harkequin wrote:
Okay, Ignoring all the arguments and issues cropping up in the last few pages about detachments and ICs.
Here is the scenario.
Vanguard Veterans from Shadowstrike (formation that allows them to assault)
A chaplain has joined the unit before deepstrike.
1.
The unit
Vanguard Veterans Unit:
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain

Is the Chaplin originally from the Formation? And does the On Target Special Rule state it effects all models in the unit or carries over to the IC? If the answer is no to any one of those if the Chaplin is part of the unit the unit cannot assault from Deep Strike.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are you now claiming when an IC joins another unit your army stops being battleforged?

You agree Marneus in the Skyhammer ASM squad is 1 unit.

Page 118 says (which once again you misquote) "However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more then one detachment"

So how can a unit belonging to two Detachments not break that rule?

Im not misquoting anything, please stop lying its getting really annoying I have answered you repeatedly its not my fault you don't understand. You again are ignoring the Rules with Battle Brothers which states that: "a unit can be joined by an Independent Character that is a Battle Brother" meaning that they do not have to be apart of the same detachment. When Marneus joins the ASM Squad you follow the rules on page 166, yet again I will repeat myself.

the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.

it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.

The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.

The IC does not benefit.

 gmaleron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit is from a different detachment, good job the unit doesn't exist any longer. As proven. So, the UNIT is from one detachment. Following the rules for characters. You've just inserted the word "independent" into that, haven't you? As opposed to actually following the rules. For the record, the rules for characters are on page 100. Not page 166.

No the unit still belongs to a different Detachment because that is where the unit is located in its Army List Entry, joining a unit does not erase the Detachments they originally were part of that is a downright lie and is unsupported by any rules. And no, the discussion is about Independent Characters not Characters because Marneus Calgar as in the OP's original post was about Marneus Calgar who is listed as an Independent Character.

Sigh. Seriously, you quoted a rule that states they still follow the rules for characters. You then stated that is to do with ICs. Exocet that is wrong, as the rule only talks about characters. Page 100.

The IC unit no longer exists. That is proven.

You know what? I can't be bothered. The rules have been shown many times over, and you simply respond by changing the written rules, denying rules exist, committing logical fallacies to try to pretend all special rules are command benefits, and arguing dishonestly.

You're done. The correct answer was given page one. This has literally added nothing, except showing how poorly some people can read rules - even inventing words like "benefit" that don't even exist in the rules they quote.

 gmaleron wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Okay, Ignoring all the arguments and issues cropping up in the last few pages about detachments and ICs.
Here is the scenario.
Vanguard Veterans from Shadowstrike (formation that allows them to assault)
A chaplain has joined the unit before deepstrike.
1.
The unit
Vanguard Veterans Unit:
Vanguard Veteran 1
Vanguard Veteran 2
Vanguard Veteran 3
Vanguard Veteran 4
Vanguard Veteran Sergeant
Chaplain

Is the Chaplin originally from the Formation? And does the On Target Special Rule state it effects all models in the unit or carries over to the IC? If the answer is no to any one of those if the Chaplin is part of the unit the unit cannot assault from Deep Strike.

The Chaplain is part of the unit. Thanks to the "on target" special rule says the unit may assault. Being from the formation has nothing to do with it.
"an independant Character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes"
The "on target" rule allows the unit to assault.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.

it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.

The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.

The IC does not benefit.

"on target" " Vanguard Veterans squads from this formation ...... (Verbatim)"

Not vanguard veterans models.

The IC is part of the vanguard veterans squad for all rules purposes.

Blaktoof Vanguard Veteran Squad is the name of the unit. Thus it does indeed state it benefits the unit. I pretty certain this was covered on page 1?

blaktoof wrote:
the rule in question does not state it benefits the unit, or the unit if at least one model has it.

it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.

The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.

The IC does not benefit.

The bold is a lie. The data sheet is very clear that "Vanguard Veteran Squad" is the name of the ALE (unit.) page 121. You have been corrected on this so many times it is now clear that this is simply a dishonest tactic to prop up your interpretation

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sigh. Seriously, you quoted a rule that states they still follow the rules for characters. You then stated that is to do with ICs. Exocet that is wrong, as the rule only talks about characters. Page 100.
The IC unit no longer exists. That is proven.
You know what? I can't be bothered. The rules have been shown many times over, and you simply respond by changing the written rules, denying rules exist, committing logical fallacies to try to pretend all special rules are command benefits, and arguing dishonestly.
You're done. The correct answer was given page one. This has literally added nothing, except showing how poorly some people can read rules - even inventing words like "benefit" that don't even exist in the rules they quote.

The rules for Characters on Page 100, the Rules for Independent Characters are on page 166, you are looking in the wrong spot and Marneus Calgar is an Independent Character so sorry you are wrong. And no its not proven, it clearly states on page 166 (the CORRECT PAGE) that he still follows the rules for characters which includes that clause about Special Rules. You are right, I have shown the rules over and over again and you are changing written rules, looking at the wrong page for said rules and arguing dishonestly. You're done and you have been proven false repeatedly, you are right it shows how poorly YOU read rules, and the word "Benefit" exists under Command Benefits so once again you are proven a liar. Good riddance to people who don't know how to use a menu section in a Rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
it benefits the vanguard veteran squad which references the vanguard veterans purchased for the formation. The attached IC is part of the unit for rules purposes, but it is not from or part of the vanguard veteran squad.
The rules do not target the unit, they are granted to the models from that datasheet. One is a group of models on the table, the other are a group of models purchased from a particular datasheet- in this case also in a particular formation.
The IC does not benefit.

You are correct man don't listen to him, he cant even get the correct page number and doesn't even know that Marneus Calgar is listed as an Independent Character, he doesn't understand the rules at all. He is ignoring the fact that the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character as well.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Blaktoof Vanguard Veteran Squad is the name of the unit. Thus it does indeed state it benefits the unit. I pretty certain this was covered on page 1?

Correct it is the name of the unit that was chosen as part of a Formation Detachment. The Chaplin is not part of the Formation Detachment and therefore cannot benefit from the Formation Units Special Rules as described clearly in the Rule Book.

For the final time

Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"

Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.

I'll accept your apology now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
For the final time
Get your rule book out. Page 166, left hand column, final paragraph "..though he still follows the rules for characters"
Not IC. Character. The rules for characters are on page 100. You are changing the rule by pretending that it states "independent characters", which of course it doesn't.
I'll accept your apology now.

Oh Jesus Christ maybe you should read page 100 again, they need to be Independent Characters in Order to join other units, therefore if Marneus Calgar was just a "Character" he couldn't even join the unit! It then says to reference Independent Characters on page 166 as he is an Independent Character, I will accept YOUR apology now.