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.

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.

This is false.

Dude please go back to my longer post and point out where its tripping you up.

You're original argument.

"units special rules do not confer to an IC and an ICs special rules do not confer to a unit"

I proved that neither rules are being conferred to each other.

harkequin wrote:

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.

This is false.
Dude please go back to my longer post and point out where its tripping you up.
You're original argument.
"units special rules do not confer to an IC and an ICs special rules do not confer to a unit"
I proved that neither rules are being conferred to each other.

You didn't, here are the rules that void your argument so its not false:

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.

According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.

 gmaleron wrote:

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.

Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?

The fact that Marneus Calgar has "Independent Character" listed in his unit profile means that you use all the rules found on page 166 for Independent Characters, if he was a regular Character (whose rules for those are on page 100) he couldn't even join the unit to begin with.

According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.

They are both part of the same detachment. Talon strike force

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
So again, we are going back to the two units in one argument which has yet to be supported anywhere? So the IC rule about when it joins another unit it counts as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes is never stated? Which rulebook are you using?
The IC has the HQ role when he is a unit, as the UNIT has the Role, not the model. When the IC is in a Troops unit, he is not operating as an HQ unit, but a model in a Troops unit. It really is quite simple and explicit, I don't understand why you choose to ignore it.

If the IC were to join a unit from HIS Detachment then he has the potential to benefit from that Units Special Rules if said Special Rule can carry over to the IC such as Stubborn. Stubborn works because how the rule is setup "a model in the unit effects the whole unit". However since the Formation is a different Detachment he cannot benefit from the Command Benefits (Special Rules) of the other Detachment. We are not ignoring it, its just a fact that it doesn't work at all because it never gets past the "from a different detachment" stage.

Incorrect. You keep thinking that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit. The rule regarding detachments states that a unit cannot belong to two different detachments. We are not changing this as when an IC joins a unit, his unit identity no longer counts, only the unit identity of the unit he joins matters until he leaves the unit.

To put it simply, when a Blood Angel Captain joins a Dark Angel Tactical Squad it becomes a Captain model with Furious Charge in a in a Dark Angels Tactical Squad.

In addition, there are zero differences between a Detachment special rule and a Universal Special Rule, save where one finds them.

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 Special Rules (a type of Command Benefits)

2 incorrect points.

If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

All Command Benefits are Special Rules, but not all Special Rules are Command Benefits. All elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. All pugs are dogs, but not all dogs are pugs. If a model's special rules are Command Benefits, than they are lost when taken Unbound. But this is not the case as Command Benefits are only listed for detachments who cannot be used while Unbound.

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." 

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."

Camp A and Camp B are the same camp, actually. We take both rules in to consideration.

Camp C seems to ignore the exception listed for the special rules all together,

Camp D seems to think that special rules pass between IC and units (where permitted) only when in the same detachment.

There is also a Camp E which take one condition from Stubborn to use as the whole standard for this, which would ignore the reference to Blind.

And there is a Camp F which seems to think that a unit called by name is not actually referring to a unit, but only the original models purchased for the unit.

In the case of Fleet, the IC is part of the unit. All models in the unit must have this rule in order for the unit to do Fleet rerolls. If the IC does not have it, not every model in the unit has it, so the unit cannot have access this Reroll.

You also have the perspective of Stubborn backwards, the rule asks if a unit has a model with the rule. If it does during the Tests in question the unit gets go ignore a certain effect on them. No mention of giving or conferring is used.

Infiltrate is not an all or nothing rule like Fleet or Deep Strike, it only requires one model in the unit for the unit to use it. In most cases, it doesn't mean much since most units with Infiltrate usually have all models with it or none of them do, and ICs need to have it to join a unit with it in deployment. However if a unit Character like an Exarch or Sergeant alone has the rule, the whole unit are Infiltrators.

Also

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.

Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.

"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Q.E.D

Charistoph wrote:
2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.

harkequin wrote:

According to this because the Chaplin is not apart of the Formation Detachment he cannot benefit from a unit from another detachments Special Rules. Also page 116 dealing with Independent Characters and Special Rules proves this false as well even if they were apart of the same Detachment.

They are both part of the same detachment. Talon strike force

Okay then because the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character the Special Rule "On Target" has to carry over to the IC in some way, if it doesn't then he cannot benefit from the Special Rule as per the rules for Independent Characteres on page 166

harkequin wrote:
Also

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.

Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.
"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Q.E.D

The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault, it says nothing about anyone else in the unit so no the Vanguard Veterans are the only ones that can assault coming from Deep Strike Q.E.D

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)

 gmaleron wrote:

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.

Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100

Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (any unit with a model that contains this special rule e.g. stealth)

Incorrect, as ever.

The name of the ale is the name of the unit. Ale equals unit.

I'd say try again, but this is not for your benefit, just others who may believe your argument has some credibility. It doesn't,t as it is based on rubbish like pretending the reference to the ALE is somehow a reference to the models, when the cited rules state differently (and would bpmeans e.g. The Sarge doesn't get the rule, as he is named differently. But then you of course handwaved that little inconvenience away)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.

Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.

Incorrect, as ever.
The name of the ale is the name of the unit. Ale equals unit.
I'd say try again, but this is not for your benefit, just others who may believe your argument has some credibility. It doesn't,t as it is based on rubbish like pretending the reference to the ALE is somehow a reference to the models, when the cited rules state differently (and would bpmeans e.g. The Sarge doesn't get the rule, as he is named differently. But then you of course handwaved that little inconvenience away)

Making claims with an incorrect information and misreading the rules is not the way to go about things to try and solve your argument. You are attempting to try and claim that someone with Independent Character listed in their profile is just a character and searching for any little loophole to try and prove your argument. We have the RAW To back us up on multiple pages, you are claiming things that aren't even written down.

harkequin wrote:
Also

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.

Yes. The unit Gains "on target" the rule. "on target" allows the unit to assault.

"the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Q.E.D

Not quite, the veteran vanguards unit for that detachment gain the special rule BEFORE deployment when the IC has not joined. This is when the rules are given out.

If you read further on command benefits/formation special rules it tells you they are given out before the game begins to MODELS in said units.

So yes the vanguard veteran unit gains the rules on the MODELS before deployment. The IC cannot join the unit before deployment. Therefore the rule then needs to specify it benefits the unit if at least one model has it, and/or confers to the IC otherwise the IC cannot benefit.

 gmaleron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.

Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.

No issue, it's what the triangle of friendship is for

Actually it states he follows the rules for characters. Did you read either my cute or your rule book? A simp,e yes or no is required, to see if your failing is from eithe not reading the cited rule, or simply failing to understand the meaning behind it. Root cause and all that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, you didn't actually read that rule as told, did you? It has to do with once the IC has joined. That while he is in the unit he is a character. From page 100Your critical inability to read cited rules is just laughable.

Correct and when the IC joins the unit he follows the rules for Independent Characters as listed in his profile, again you are misinterpreting the rules to try and benefit your argument not the actual truth. Enjoy report btw, violation of rule 1.

No issue, it's what the triangle of friendship is for
Actually it states he follows the rules for characters. Did you read either my cute or your rule book? A simp,e yes or no is required, to see if your failing is from eithe not reading the cited rule, or simply failing to understand the meaning behind it. Root cause and all that.

I did read it and there is nothing there that is written as you claim, no surprise. Your failing is that you are making implications and assumptions instead of saying what is actually written which doesn't surprise me the fact you cant tell the truth. He is listed as an INDEPENDENT CHARACTER meaning he follows the rules for INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS, but of course to fit your agenda it makes sense to follow a completely different set of rules then what is listed in his profile.

Okay then because the Chaplin is listed as an Independent Character the Special Rule "On Target" has to carry over to the IC in some way, if it doesn't then he cannot benefit from the Special Rule as per the rules for Independent Characteres on page 166

.. and the olympic gold in backpedalling goes to....

Your point got 100% countered and all of a sudden you are arguing a different point after all?

Or can you concede that the Detachment issue doesn't work now.

Never the less
Re the underlined
No. It doesn't I literally proved this earlier.
Saying that the Chaplain can't charge is like saying the Vanguards don't get fearless.

The vanguard veterans have the rule. The rule allows the "unit" (Which the Chaplain is part of) to charge.

The "on target" rule, says that this vanguard veterans unit, that arrived from deepstrike can assault, it says nothing about anyone else in the unit so no the Vanguard Veterans are the only ones that can assault coming from Deep Strike Q.E.D

Except you are ignoring this interesting quote
" an IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This means regardless of all special rules,
The Chaplain is part of the Vanguard Veterans Squad
You cannot refute this.

can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Oops, caught you in a lie then.

Full paragraph, page 166 of the 7th edition brb, left hand column, final paragraph

"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"

Do you deny that full paragraph exists in the brb as stated? If so, could you please state what else is there?

I did read it and there is nothing there that is written as you claim,

It literally says follow the rules for characters. Literally.

The way it works is P.166 IC -> go to P.100 Characters.

One rule tells you they can join squads, then tells you they follow the rules detailed under "characters"

 gmaleron wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.Cool so you use page 166 to join Marneus to the unit. What rules must he still follow whilst attached according the final paragraph on the Kent hand column of the UK rules? The ones on page 100 or page 166?

The fact that Marneus Calgar has "Independent Character" listed in his unit profile means that you use all the rules found on page 166 for Independent Characters, if he was a regular Character (whose rules for those are on page 100) he couldn't even join the unit to begin with.

You are aware that Marneus is both an IC and a Character right? I believe every single IC is also a Character.

harkequin wrote:

I did read it and there is nothing there that is written as you claim,

It literally says follow the rules for characters. Literally.

The way it works is P.166 IC -> go to P.100 Characters.

One rule tells you they can join squads, then tells you they follow the rules detailed under "characters"

Yes, but this is the same poster that thinks the word "benefit" exists in the Special Rules section instead of the actual word "confers", so I don't hold out much hope.

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

Joining an IC to an unit makes it part of the unit for rules purposes, but it does not make it from that units datasheet nor give it that units name, nor from that units formation, nor from that units faction, etc.

For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.

The rule has to state it does something to the "Unit".

This is why both ITC and adepticon have ruled that the IC does not benefit. I realize it is ambiguous and someone people would like words to be there that are not to gain an advantage from this, but that's not how the rule is written.

harkequin wrote:

Except you are ignoring this interesting quote
" an IC is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes"

I didn't backpedal at all, the fact that he is part of the Formation changes the circumstances why he cannot benefit from the rule so you are still wrong. The Detachment issue is not the problem in this case but the fact that he is an Independent Character means that he cannot benefit from Special Rules of a unit as described clearly on page 166. And you are trying to argue two different Special Rules with two different descriptions so your argument is flawed:

Fearless: Units containing one or models with the Fearless Special Rule Automatically pass Pinning, Fear regroup, and morale checks.

It clearly states that only one model in the unit has to have the rule to give it to everyone so im sorry, your argument is flawed. And I am not ignoring the fact that it says an IC is considered part of the unit, however you are forgetting to add "he still follows the rules for Characters", and since he is listed as an Independent Character you have to follow the rules for Independent Characters (which is a type of character) and Special Rules which states the Special Rule has to allow the IC in some way to benefit from the rule. Sorry the Chaplin cannot benefit from the Vanguard Veterans Special Rule.

Odd question.

Does that merely negate the assault-from-reserves restriction, or all restrictions? Probably the latter.

For instance, if you somehow had a combi-plas, and shot it in the shooting phase, would they still be allowed to charge, despite having fired a Rapid Fire weapon?

I think so, RAW but not RAI.

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.

Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.

And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)

I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.

If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.

However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.

So you're saying that when an IC joins a Vanguard Veteran Squad then the unit is no longer a Vanguard Veteran Squad?

Charistoph wrote:
Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment. And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

How does it violate the rules when there is a clear clause in Battle Brothers that states that as along as they are Battle Brothers IC's can join units in other Detachments? Also it mentions a similar thing under Factions. And I do recognize what you are saying but the IC still does not ignore the rules found for Independent Characters listed on page 166 which states that the Special Rule in some way shape or form confers to either the IC or the entire unit. It is the Special Rule itself that decides if he receives a benefit or not.

Zimko wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

harkequin wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you please quote where it states the unit can charge.

verbatim from the rule.

Using the word unit, which is not just an interchangeable word but a word with a set of rules within the game.

Verbatim.
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike"
Verbatim

Does that help?

Yeah that doesn't say the unit gets to do anything.

Vanguard Veteran isn't the same as saying "unit" for the rules of the game.

For the same reason you can't join a techmarine to Marneus Calgar and say the Techmarine is Marneus Calgar.

So you're saying that when an IC joins a Vanguard Veteran Squad then the unit is no longer a Vanguard Veteran Squad?

I am saying there is no permission for the IC to be from the vanguard veteran squad, and in this case from the squad bought from that formation.

Being part of the unit != the IC changes which datasheet it was bought from and which detachment that datasheet goes to. And this is not an "unit" rule, because it lacks the word "unit".

Bharring wrote:
Odd question.

Does that merely negate the assault-from-reserves restriction, or all restrictions? Probably the latter.

For instance, if you somehow had a combi-plas, and shot it in the shooting phase, would they still be allowed to charge, despite having fired a Rapid Fire weapon?

I think so, RAW but not RAI.

No, it only overrides the restriction normally applied to units coming from reserves since the rule specifically mentions arriving from Deep Strike. It does not override restrictions from other sources such as firing a Rapid Fire weapon.

Charistoph wrote:

gmaleron wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
2 incorrect points. If a unit cannot belong to two detachments, than if two detachments are being represented in a unit, we have a violation. Solution: the model which is stated to count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes counts its original Detachment identification as not in affect. If a Formation lists Slow and Purposeful or Stubborn being applied to its units, your position translates as that an IC from a different Detachment could not benefit from these rules.

There is no Violation, the fact that under Battle Brothers it states that an Independent Character can join a unit if they are Battle Brothers ignores this, the fact he is an Independent Character means he has to follow the rules for Independent Characters on page 166 which we have already established shows the Special Rule needs to affect the IC in some way. And no my position does not translate that at all, it comes down to the specific special rule and what is entailed.

Actually it does violate both the multiple Detachment rule and the rule for Independent Characters. Unit identity and Detachment identity are rules with a purpose. For the purpose of this rule, the IC is not recognized as a unit from his Detachment, but as a member of a unit from the unit's Detachment.

And you continue to not recognize the exception and how it says it confers.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

The bold is not a lie. The name of the unit != unit. If I joined a chaplain to Marneus Calgar, the chaplain is now part of the unit for all intents and purposes. Is the chaplain now also Marneus Calgar? No. You are 100% wrong on this and have no support.

You want to jump that the name of something = unit for the rules purpose of what an unit means, to make certain rules work. However there is no rules support for this stance and it goes against how all unit rules which benefit the unit on the tabletop work, which require the use of the word unit further supported by what the rule does for the unit, as well as who benefits from the rule (an unit that contains at least one model with this special rule e.g. stealth)

I don't know, when I see something being referred to by something called a "unit name" I believe that it referencing a unit by that name. That's basic English without anything to change it. This is especially true when there is no other entity in question that can be recognized as anything but a unit.

If the original unit's name is the same as the models, adding the unit qualifier is needed to differentiate it as affecting the unit, like Deathmarks. The Deathmark name is applied to a Decurion Auxiliary Choice, a unit, and a model. In these cases where a rule is needed to affect the whole unit, saying Deathmarks unit is required to note the level of affect.

However, can you identify any entity on the board as a Vanguard Veteran Squad that is not a unit? Is there some confusion that is generated by using this name to refer to anything but a unit?

so you believe a Techmarine that moves within 2" of Marneus Calgar and joins him is now also Marneus Calgar?

or the inverse of this question, can You identify the IC in an unit of vanguard veterans as not a vanguard veteran if someone asked you to refer to a datasheet for the rules for the IC?