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.

No the detatchment keyword is set - it is a custodes detatchment - but custodes detatchments are imperium detatchments.

The sisters army wide abilities (debatable given half the codex doesnt have them) like admech canticals are not attatched to the detatchment they are on the individual datasheets.

So in those cases an assadsin wouldnt benefit as it doesnt have the ability on its datasheet however since custodes is an anomaly and gives it to the detatchment it works


As to the SOB question the assasins rule overwrites so your sisters still get it

"The inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit does not prevent other units from their Detachment from benefiting from Detachment abilities (e.g. Chapter Tactics, Defenders of Humanity etc.), and it does not prevent other units from your army benefiting from abilities that require every model in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines)"

How is the detachment keyword set?

battle brothers rule

Single unifying keyword ( not imperium)

I am of course assuming matched play

Drager wrote:
How is the detachment keyword set?

It isn't "set". The detachment simply "is". The restriction is you cannot have a detachment internally only bound by the "IMPERIUM" keyword as per the Battle Brothers rule.

A detachment where all units share the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS CUSTODES keyword is both an IMPERIUM detachment and an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment.

Likewise, a detachment where all units share the IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES and ULTRAMARINES keyword is an IMPERIUM detachment, an ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment, and an ULTRAMARINES detachment, while a detachment containing, for example, Space Wolf units and Dark Angel units would be an IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment.

A Patrol detachment containing a Space Marines Captain, a Imperial Guard Infantry Squad and a Sororitas Rhino would only be an IMPERIUM detachment (as the only faction keyword shared by all units is IMPERIUM), and thus is not permitted in matched play as per the Battle Brothers rule.

The "Agents of the Imperium" special rule allows for the inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model in a, for example, ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment without causing the detachment to no longer be an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment, you basically ignore the AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit when determining what type of detachment it is.

But is set - because your calling it an adeptus custodes detatchment.

The fact your saying " The "Agents of the Imperium" special rule allows for the inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model in a, for example, ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment without causing the detachment to no longer be an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment,"

SHOWS that being an ADEPTUS custodes detatchment is different.

Battlebrothers means you must have one unifying keyword

And by convention you state the highest order keyword.

If someone tells you they have an adeptus astartes detatchment they don't mean pure ultramarines. Even though a pure ultramarines detatchment all have the adeptus astartes keyword.

U02dah4 wrote:
But is set - because your calling it an adeptus custodes detatchment.

The fact your saying " The "Agents of the Imperium" special rule allows for the inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model in a, for example, ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment without causing the detachment to no longer be an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment,"

SHOWS that being an ADEPTUS custodes detatchment is different.

Battlebrothers means you must have one unifying keyword

And by convention you state the highest order keyword.

If someone tells you they have an adeptus astartes detatchment they don't mean pure ultramarines. Even though a pure ultramarines detatchment all have the adeptus astartes keyword.

You have it backwards. You don't decide it's an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment, it simply IS an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment because all units in the detachment share the ADEPTUS CUSTODES keyword. You don't, after the fact, declare it as such, it simply is one because of the units you include in it.

If I fill a bag with apples, it's a bag of apples not because I decided to call it a bag of apples, it's a bag of apples because the bag is filled with apples.

And yet

tournament packs require you to specify detatchment type (and i mean every tournament)

Battlescribe does (you get an error without a subfaction)

Even GW official army roster sheet has a box for detatchment type.

If I have a bag of apples, I would say I have a bag of apples, not I have a bag of fruit. Even though apples are also fruit.

U02dah4 wrote:
And yet

tournament packs require you to specify detatchment type (and i mean every tournament)

Battlescribe does (you get an error without a subfaction)

Even GW official army roster sheet has a box for detatchment type.

What's your point? That doesn't change the rules, it's just asking that when you go to a tournament, you specify what your list consists of.

U02dah4 wrote:
And yet

tournament packs require you to specify detatchment type (and i mean every tournament)

Battlescribe does (you get an error without a subfaction)

Even GW official army roster sheet has a box for detatchment type.

If I have a bag of apples, I would say I have a bag of apples, not I have a bag of fruit. Even though apples are also fruit.

1) House rules are house rules.
2) Battlescribe does that only to simplify army building, to allow for certain units to be hidden and to validate relic choices.

I don't understand your issue, tbh.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
How is the detachment keyword set?

It isn't "set". The detachment simply "is". The restriction is you cannot have a detachment internally only bound by the "IMPERIUM" keyword as per the Battle Brothers rule.

A detachment where all units share the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS CUSTODES keyword is both an IMPERIUM detachment and an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment.

Likewise, a detachment where all units share the IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES and ULTRAMARINES keyword is an IMPERIUM detachment, an ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment, and an ULTRAMARINES detachment, while a detachment containing, for example, Space Wolf units and Dark Angel units would be an IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment.

A Patrol detachment containing a Space Marines Captain, a Imperial Guard Infantry Squad and a Sororitas Rhino would only be an IMPERIUM detachment (as the only faction keyword shared by all units is IMPERIUM), and thus is not permitted in matched play as per the Battle Brothers rule.

The "Agents of the Imperium" special rule allows for the inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model in a, for example, ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment without causing the detachment to no longer be an ADEPTUS CUSTODES detachment, you basically ignore the AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit when determining what type of detachment it is.

One additional thing is that where all units share the IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES and ULTRAMARINES keyword is also, per the rules of Codex Space Marines, a Space Marines detachment. Agents of the Imperium allows you add the applicable unit to such a detachment and for it to remain a Space Marines detachment and thus benefit from all rules for being such a detachment (such as gaining access to Space Marine Relics, warlord traits, stratagems and what not).

3) you dont have an answer to so you ignored.

My point was if under 99.9% of circumstances it has to be specified by houserules, ease of list writting or your mad enough to use GW own printed roster - its set to all intensive purposes.

BCB only objection to my initial statement was that its not set when by all intensive purposes it is

I agree it has no baring on the original question as BCB wasnt objecting to that just to the semantics

Well, I think the only point against assassins gaining the rule is the language "other units". since the assassin will always be one single model, "other units" would indicate everything EXCEPT the one assassin.

But that is definitely pretty murky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you could look at it this way:

"I have a detachment that includes only ADEPTUS CUSTODES units. Does my AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model benefit from the rule that is contingent on the detachment containing only ADEPTUS CUSTODES units?"

An AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit included in a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. in a matched play game) and when determining your Army Faction.

Nope, he is ignored and thus does not get that rule.

U02dah4 wrote:
3) you dont have an answer to so you ignored.

My point was if under 99.9% of circumstances it has to be specified by houserules, ease of list writting or your mad enough to use GW own printed roster - its set to all intensive purposes.

BCB only objection to my initial statement was that its not set when by all intensive purposes it is

I agree it has no baring on the original question as BCB wasnt objecting to that just to the semantics

You really have a chip on your shoulder. I didn't answer it because it it is the same answer as answer 2, it's there to simplify roster making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Well, I think the only point against assassins gaining the rule is the language "other units". since the assassin will always be one single model, "other units" would indicate everything EXCEPT the one assassin.

But that is definitely pretty murky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you could look at it this way:

"I have a detachment that includes only ADEPTUS CUSTODES units. Does my AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM model benefit from the rule that is contingent on the detachment containing only ADEPTUS CUSTODES units?"

An AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit included in a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. in a matched play game) and when determining your Army Faction.

Nope, he is ignored and thus does not get that rule.

No, they are not "ignored". You can't just cut off a rule midway. They are "ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common." The only such rule in 8th edition is the Battle Brothers matched play rule. What you are doing is like saying that a rule that says "Add 1 to saving throws for Rubric Marines if the attack has a Damage characteristic of 1." allows you to "add 1 to all saving throws" regardless of the characteristic of the wound.

Detachment Traits are not rules saying "all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common", it's a rule giving a buff if all units from that Detachment have at least one Faction keyword in common. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.

So for every other unit in the detachment it acts as (for example) an Adeptus Custodes detachment, but for the Assassin it doesn't (as they aren't other units) so they don't benefit, because they do break those bonuses for themselves. I agree with BCB all the way up until the conclusion.

Drager wrote:
So for every other unit in the detachment it acts as (for example) an Adeptus Custodes detachment, but for the Assassin it doesn't (as they aren't other units) so they don't benefit, because they do break those bonuses for themselves. I agree with BCB all the way up until the conclusion.

That isn't what the rule says. I dunno how many times I need to repeat the same thing.

No, they are not "ignored". You can't just cut off a rule midway. They are "ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common." The only such rule in 8th edition is the Battle Brothers matched play rule. What you are doing is like saying that a rule that says "Add 1 to saving throws for Rubric Marines if the attack has a Damage characteristic of 1." allows you to "add 1 to all saving throws" regardless of the characteristic of the wound.

Detachment Traits are not rules saying "all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common", it's a rule giving a buff if all units from that Detachment have at least one Faction keyword in common. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.

One again: Detachment Traits are not rules saying "all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common", it's a rule giving a buff if all units from that Detachment have at least one Faction keyword in common. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.

You can't just add random extra bits to a rule that don't exist.

FWIW there is no such thing as an IMPERIUM Datachment in this point for matched play. You most definately do have named detachments, otherwise you couldn't benefit from chapter tactics for example as the detachment is required to be a "SPACE MARINES DETACHMENT" which is then defined what that is on p175 of the space marine codex.

RAW the unit is a slotless unit in the FOC for the detachment.

RAW- it would only "work" with adeptus custodes, due to the fact they do not have subfactions so the wording on them (par for the course for all imperium codexes honestly..) is written to not include any such interaction. No other faction has language that would permit assassins to gain a detachment level benefit.

RAI- the assassin shouldn't benefit, there is no permissive wording in the assassin rule to give it detachment benefits and it relies on a singular poorly written codex to gain any benefit, being barred from all the rest due to RAW for the others. No major tournament is going to think this is kosher, and it will likely be faqed.

blaktoof wrote:
FWIW there is no such thing as an IMPERIUM Datachment in this point for matched play. You most definately do have named detachments, otherwise you couldn't benefit from chapter tactics for example as the detachment is required to be a "SPACE MARINES DETACHMENT" which is then defined what that is on p175 of the space marine codex.

No, it's not. Firstly, it's "Space Marines Detachment" (not "SPACE MARINES detachment", as SPACE MARINES is not a keyword), and even then that is defined as a shorthand for a specific type of detachment. It doesn't stop the detachment from being an IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, or ULTRAMARINES detachment.

Again, you don't choose for a detachment or declare a detachment to be "Space Marines Detachment", to be so after or before the fact, it simply "is" for meeting the requirements to be a "Space Marines Detachment".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
FWIW there is no such thing as an IMPERIUM Datachment in this point for matched play. You most definately do have named detachments, otherwise you couldn't benefit from chapter tactics for example as the detachment is required to be a "SPACE MARINES DETACHMENT" which is then defined what that is on p175 of the space marine codex.

No, it's not. Firstly, it's "Space Marines Detachment" (not "SPACE MARINES detachment", as SPACE MARINES is not a keyword), and even then that is defined as a shorthand for a specific type of detachment. It doesn't stop the detachment from being an IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, or ULTRAMARINES detachment.

Again, you don't choose for a detachment or declare a detachment to be "Space Marines Detachment", to be so after or before the fact, it simply "is" for meeting the requirements to be a "Space Marines Detachment".

That's not quite true.

Space Marines Detachment is a real thing with real rules tied to it.

p.175 of the current adeptus astartes codex
"A Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes Space Marines units."

Then there is a section called "ABILITIES" that says "Space Marines Detachments gain the following abilities".

So whether or not you declare it doesn't matter, what matters is that it exists and you certainly do have named detachments in case. Almost every armies matched play battle forged rules are tied to having a named detachment. Which all goes back to the point that in matched play there is no such thing as a IMPERIUM detachment, because detachment is not based on keyword - which is why blood angels/dark angels/space wolves are not SPACE MARINE DETACHMENTS per the RAW despite having the adeptus astartes keyword. Further the detachment name isn't tied to keyword at all its tied to a rules blurb in each codex, which is why there is no SPACE MARINE keyword but we have rules for the Space Marines Detachment which is 100% a RAW named detachment with 100% RAW abilities and restrictions tied around it.

We can have a pointless discussion about picking the detachment name prior to, or after army creation, the reality is it is a byproduct of trying to get access to rules for units that we create armies in mind with. However that does not mean it doesn't exist. You would be unable to play using any of the necron dynasty rules without having a NECRON Detachment in your battleforged army, and likewise a White Scars player would be unable to use any of their chapter what nots without being a Space Marines Detachment.


Edit-

Which is all why this whole Assassin mess is a poorly written mess that doesn't work with any codex other than Adeptus Codex, because it is the only codex written without discussing the sub factions within the codex(there were none at the time of writing) and hence the "special abilities for this detachment" section for it are not written with any such language. The War of the Spider assassin rules only work RAW with this singular faction because of this lack of language in the rules for Adeptus Custodes that exists for every other codex(again because they had no subfactions at the time of writing the codex) bringing this "interaction" in the rules. RAI it is not meant to be, there is no actually permissive wording in the assassin rule to grant the detachment benefit to the assassin and you are relying solely on the wording of the detachments rules, which in every case other than adeptus custodes would preclude the assassin from gaining anything.

I would never try to claim that Assassin's I take with my Sisters would benefit from Orders. Even if you could argue it it just seems gamey.

Unless GW specifies otherwise than I'm going with the notion that I can take an Assassin without sacrificing my Sacred Rites and Order convictions.

Thanks for the replies. Now to go order 4 assassins.

blaktoof wrote:
Which is all why this whole Assassin mess is a poorly written mess that doesn't work with any codex other than Adeptus Codex, because it is the only codex written without discussing the sub factions within the codex(there were none at the time of writing) and hence the "special abilities for this detachment" section for it are not written with any such language. The War of the Spider assassin rules only work RAW with this singular faction because of this lack of language in the rules for Adeptus Custodes that exists for every other codex(again because they had no subfactions at the time of writing the codex) bringing this "interaction" in the rules. RAI it is not meant to be, there is no actually permissive wording in the assassin rule to grant the detachment benefit to the assassin and you are relying solely on the wording of the detachments rules, which in every case other than adeptus custodes would preclude the assassin from gaining anything.

I can't agree with this analysis. the Agents of the Imperium rule seems just fine alongside the rules for Adepta Sororitas detachment, Order Convictions, Astra Militarium detachment, and Regimental Doctrines.

jivardi wrote:I would never try to claim that Assassin's I take with my Sisters would benefit from Orders. Even if you could argue it it just seems gamey.

Unless GW specifies otherwise than I'm going with the notion that I can take an Assassin without sacrificing my Sacred Rites and Order convictions.

Thanks for the replies. Now to go order 4 assassins.

alextroy wrote:I can't agree with this analysis. the Agents of the Imperium rule seems just fine alongside the rules for Adepta Sororitas detachment, Order Convictions, Astra Militarium detachment, and Regimental Doctrines.

I just want to point out that Assassins can't benefit from Sororitas Order Convictions because the rules for Order Convictions are written such that the Assassins can't benefit. AFAIK they are the only detachment trait Assassins can't benefit from. Everything else they can.

Well thats just wrong canticals for example or ordo or regiment you dont have tge keyword and or rule on the datasheet

That doesnt prevent others gaining benefit

U02dah4 wrote:
Well thats just wrong canticals for example or ordo or regiment you dont have tge keyword and or rule on the datasheet

That doesnt prevent others gaining benefit

Ok, go read the rule for Regiment Traits. Nowhere does it say you need a specific keyword to benefit, especially if you use a custom regiment.

If your army is battle forged, all <regiment> units in an astra militarum .....

Your assassin isn't a <Regiment> unit

As to custom regiments it says the rules for regiments are in codex astra militarum

U02dah4 wrote:
If your army is battle forged, all <regiment> units in an astra militarum .....

Your assassin isn't a <Regiment> unit

As to custom regiments it says the rules for regiments are in codex astra militarum

You know what, fair point. It also doesn't work for Imperial Guard, same as Sisters. My mistake, I should have checked first and not worked of memory!

However, it does work for Adeptus Custodes and Space Marines, my point still stands.

Oh look an oversight that will get FAQ’d. Nothing new here.

Do we really all need to get worked up because BCB spotted an edge case that will be patched? It’s blatantly not the intent and will be FAQ’d soon as they get back to FAQing.

Don’t waste your time debating this.

In the rules described in this section we sometimes refer to space marines units and detatchment a space marines unit is any adeptus astartes unit that has one of following faction keywords <chapter>...

Sm codex pp 174

The assassin neither has adeptus astartes or <chapter> keyword it is therefore not a space marine unit

A space marines detatchment is a detatchment that only includes space marine units

So a detatchment with an assassin is not a space marine detatchment and does not benefit from chapter tactics

However

The inclusion of an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM unit does not prevent other units from their Detachment from benefiting from Detachment abilities (e.g. Chapter Tactics, Defenders of Humanity etc.), and it does not prevent other units from your army benefiting from abilities that require every model in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines).

So other units in the detatchment are not prevented from gaining chapter tactics and gain them as if it were a space marine detatchment but that does not make it a space marine detatchment. The exception applies to other units only not the assassin.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look an oversight that will get FAQ’d. Nothing new here.

Do we really all need to get worked up because BCB spotted an edge case that will be patched? It’s blatantly not the intent and will be FAQ’d soon as they get back to FAQing.

Don’t waste your time debating this.

FAQ ? Whats that ? Wait, i remember, a long time ago, we had something like that. Saga of the beast hasnt been FAQed yet, and it was released 11 weeks ago. Or are you talking about the big spring FAQ, which also hasnt been released yet ?

It's almost like GW thought that there was a global pandemic where they had to furlough their employees. Good thing then that Saga of the Beast is a campaign book and not a codex book (So the FAQ two weeks after a codex drops doesn't apply). However shame on GW for not giving us a Spring FAQ but a whole new edition instead. Bad GW, bad

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look an oversight that will get FAQ’d. Nothing new here.

Do we really all need to get worked up because BCB spotted an edge case that will be patched? It’s blatantly not the intent and will be FAQ’d soon as they get back to FAQing.

Don’t waste your time debating this.

FAQ ? Whats that ? Wait, i remember, a long time ago, we had something like that. Saga of the beast hasnt been FAQed yet, and it was released 11 weeks ago. Or are you talking about the big spring FAQ, which also hasnt been released yet ?

I don’t know if you noticed but there’s been a pandemic.