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.

Apparently there is some confusion on equipping chemical flamers on units using the purge detachment from the IA vol 5 2nd edition: Siege of Vraks book. The book states "Any friendly unit in the army equipped with flamers or heavy flamers may be upgraded to be equipped with chemical flamers for free". Now I'm taking that to mean that any unit in my entire army, including any allied detachments as well, but a few people in my group are arguing that the chemical weapon upgrade only applies to this specific purge detachment. If that were the case, the codex would have said that, just like it does for the "salt the earth" special rule. It's a clear case of RAW.

So my question is: Does the free chemical flamer upgrade rule also affect allied detachments in the same ARMY as mine? If you don't think so, present your argument.

If it says army then by RAW it applies to the army. I suspect, given Forgeworld's track record, it may not be intended that way though.

It falls on how you wish to fully interpret the rules for maximum advantage.

If you wish to go full RAW then so be it, but i'll just point that after 7th most of the text who mention army was changed to detachment instead. (albeit there may be some excepcions slipped ones)

A detachment bonus applies to a detachment in 7th ed.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
A detachment bonus applies to a detachment in 7th ed.

Having found and looked at the actual rules in question (I didn't realise it was a detachment command benefit) this is correct if you're going by the draft FAQ, as we see in the following:

"Q: If I’m using a special Detachment, such as the Nemesis Strike Force Detachment, and add Independent Characters from Battle Brother Factions (e.g. the Librarius Conclave), can they all still benefit from the first turn deployment and come in together?
A: No, the rules for Detachments and Formations only apply to models/units that are part of the Detachment or Formation."

Obviously the question prompting the answer isn't comparable, but the answer is clear regarding rules for Detachments and Formations.

But the book doesn't say detachment or formation, it says army.....

 sub-zero wrote:
But the book doesn't say detachment or formation, it says army.....

So, a Detachment Command Benefit references "army"? You still have to demonstrate that the Detachment Command Benefit can impact anything other than the models in said Detachment. The draft FAQ says it can't. Of course, advanced trumps basic, so it could easily be argued that the Detachment rules text overrides the normal restriction. AMBIGUITY!

Ultimately, though, this game is a nightmare mess right now. Just ask your opponents if playing casually and the TO if playing in an organized event.

It's just slightly outdated, these days it's clear detachment rules only effect the detachment unless explicitly mentioned to effect outside of it (tau has two such examples, both drone network and the eight has a rule that has it clearly written it effects units outside the formation)

Purge benefits only effect the purge.

 BoomWolf wrote:
It's just slightly outdated, these days it's clear detachment rules only effect the detachment unless explicitly mentioned to effect outside of it (tau has two such examples, both drone network and the eight has a rule that has it clearly written it effects units outside the formation)

Purge benefits only effect the purge.

Wouldn't the book saying that the ARMY has access, be an example of being explicitly mentioned?

This is not what I mean and you know it.

By explict it says outright, and I quote here, "....of all Drones (Including Drones that are not part of this formation)...."

 BoomWolf wrote:
This is not what I mean and you know it.

By explict it says outright, and I quote here, "....of all Drones (Including Drones that are not part of this formation)...."

and using your example, it says outright "Any friendly unit in the army", what's the difference?

The vraks book is littered with 6th ed terminology. It still refers to choosing a warlord regardless of highest leadership.

TBH I would probably allow it, RAW, but its clearly not the intent, and i would expert many to object. It would only work for battle brother allies with flamers, heavy flamers or missile launchers, which isn't much.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The vraks book is littered with 6th ed terminology. It still refers to choosing a warlord regardless of highest leadership.

TBH I would probably allow it, RAW, but its clearly not the intent, and i would expert many to object. It would only work for battle brother allies with flamers, heavy flamers or missile launchers, which isn't much.

To be completely honest, we're talking about a pair of heavy flamers on a renegade knight detachment, that's all. lmao

I think that the specific (and codices) overrules the general (and the BRB). When the rulebook (p. 120) says that benefits only apply to models from that detachment, it always implies : "unless otherwise stated", as for any other rule. Plus, they are just in this case stating the obvious as to prevent confusion where they might have forgotten to say ''from this detachment'' (so that if we find something like ''troop choices are obj. sec.'' we must understand ''troop choices from this detachment are obj. sec."). They are not saying : ''when a rule says 'any friendly unit in the army', replace that by 'units from the same detachment' because detachment benefits can't reach units from other detachments''.

If you want an example, look at the 2nd command benefit from the Cult Mechanicus special detachment. You will see that it does reach units that are not from the same detachment, units that I might have in an CAD. These will also use twice an already used Canticle and clearly 'benefit' from the benefit of another detachment. The reason is that the Canticle rule concerns CM units in the same ''army'', not just in the same detachment.

The Purge detachment (published less than a year ago) says that ''any friendly unit in the army'' can take chemical flamers. The meaning (and even the misty intended meaning) is very clear. Note that they did not just write ''any friendly unit", which you could say means : ''any friendly unit from this detachment''. They clearly say ''in the army''. So there is no difference between that and ''all Drones (Including Drones that are not part of this formation)". This last rule also applies to enemy drones by the way (just saying). Furthermore, in the Purge detachment, the other benefit talks about "models from this detachment". So clearly the authors understand the difference.

But why are there so many remarks by posters, here and elsewhere, about "rules as intended", about what the authors "should" have said or "might" "want to say"? It's not relevant. The answer to a You make that call question is either yes, or no, or I don't know, in each case with proofs and references. I see RAI talks everywhere, it's annoying.

***

Having found and looked at the actual rules in question (I didn't realise it was a detachment command benefit) this is correct if you're going by the draft FAQ, as we see in the following:

"Q: If I’m using a special Detachment, such as the Nemesis Strike Force Detachment, and add Independent Characters from Battle Brother Factions (e.g. the Librarius Conclave), can they all still benefit from the first turn deployment and come in together?
A: No, the rules for Detachments and Formations only apply to models/units that are part of the Detachment or Formation."

Obviously the question prompting the answer isn't comparable, but the answer is clear regarding rules for Detachments and Formations.

This is obviously a case of 'what happens when I join an Independent character to a unit that has a special benefit'. It's under the IC section of the FAQ. It's not relevant here, as you partly admitted yourself.

It does affect your entire army. The FAQ covvers detachments giving bonusses the detachment and IC's joining it. It does not go into detachments giving bonuses to the entire army. Notice GW has phased out any rule that does this, but FW didn't. This is just how the book is written. And no "the book is outdated" argument doesn't really fly since it is released years after the release of 7th. It is just an example of GW and FW's inconsistent rule writing. I really feel that GW and FW should hire at least one classical schooled programmer to prevent situations like these. The rule set as a whole could really benefit from someone who at least has heard of a local or a global variable and is used to write good code as a team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A similar issue happened with the Immobile in reserve issue. GW has phased out all possibilities for an immobile unit to ever tutch reserve and has removed the now obsolete catch in their rule book for this situation. FW on the other hand did not reserve the memo and just continues to create wondrous new ways for this to happen. These things happen all the time.

So we agree on the purge issue I take it.

Notice GW has phased out any rule that does this.

I don't think they shut out the possibility of detachment benefits giving bonuses to the army. They may not do it, but they still can whenever they want, saying : "any friendly unit the army" or having a detachment benefit that applies to an army special rule which in turn affects all units in the army. They've done it with the CM Battle Congregation detachment for example (not to be confound with the War convocation formation) and they can to do it again. They also do it with formations, which basically work the same way : the benefits only affect the formation's members unless otherwise stated. They are not phasing out the possibility of this "unless otherwise stated".

A similar issue happened with the Immobile in reserve issue. GW has phased out all possibilities for an immobile unit to ever tutch reserve and has removed the now obsolete catch in their rule book for this situation. FW on the other hand did not reserve the memo and just continues to create wondrous new ways for this to happen. These things happen all the time.

I admit this happens, and other odd situations. But the Purge issue is not an example of that.

Maybe the authors intended ''any unit from this detachment'', but they may as much have intended what they actually wrote.

GW kinda has phased this out (at least as far as I know off). There used to be all sorts of effects that effected the entire army instead of a detachment. I can't name any now. And this is a good thing. Detachments only affecting stuff in their own detachment reduces the risk of mismatching rules.