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.

There’s also the circular logic of the deep strike keyword where a unit can only deep strike if every model in the unit has the keyword, but if only one model has the keyword it spreads to the unit, so every model in the unit does have the keyword, so why specify that you can only deep strike if every model in the unit has the keyword….

Because Deep Strike isn't a Keyword, it's an Ability

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because Deep Strike isn't a Keyword, it's an Ability

They are in conflict because you have:

treated as a single unit for all rules purposes

In conjunction with:

During the Declare Battle Formations step, if every model in a unit has this ability

So either you can't treat the entire unit as having the deepstrike rule which violates 1. or you apply them across the entire unit which invalidates 2.

The core rules don't actually validate it in either direction and I know it's been discussed but I remain not 100% convinced of intent.

Dudeface wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because Deep Strike isn't a Keyword, it's an Ability

They are in conflict because you have:

treated as a single unit for all rules purposes

In conjunction with:

During the Declare Battle Formations step, if every model in a unit has this ability

So either you can't treat the entire unit as having the deepstrike rule which violates 1. or you apply them across the entire unit which invalidates 2.

The core rules don't actually validate it in either direction and I know it's been discussed but I remain not 100% convinced of intent.

Being a "single unit for all rules purposes" does not conflict with the deepstrike rules.

Being a single unit, just interacts with things like targeting and coherency. It does not mean every model in the unit has the exact same rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because Deep Strike isn't a Keyword, it's an Ability

They are in conflict because you have:

treated as a single unit for all rules purposes

In conjunction with:

During the Declare Battle Formations step, if every model in a unit has this ability

So either you can't treat the entire unit as having the deepstrike rule which violates 1. or you apply them across the entire unit which invalidates 2.

The core rules don't actually validate it in either direction and I know it's been discussed but I remain not 100% convinced of intent.

Being a "single unit for all rules purposes" does not conflict with the deepstrike rules.

Being a single unit, just interacts with things like targeting and coherency. It does not mean every model in the unit has the exact same rules.

As per the rules, the character is treated as part of the unit, the unit has the deepstrike rule, ergo the character has the deepstrike rule as it is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes.

You will be unable to find any citation in the core rules to disprove that irrespective of how wobbly the logic is or how implied other rules are. This directly the contradicts the deepstrike rule where is suddenly cares about things on a per model level.

We're not about RAI here, but they might have been better altering the leader rule to clarify that the unit does not confer deployment rules onto the character and vice versa unless specified.

Keywords and special rules are not the same thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Keywords and special rules are not the same thing.

No, but neither have defined criteria for how they interact in the context of a leader in a unit.

Dudeface wrote:
As per the rules, the character is treated as part of the unit, the unit has the deepstrike rule, ergo the character has the deepstrike rule as it is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes.

100% false. You are confused about what "a single unit for all rules purposes" actually effects/means.

You will be unable to find any citation in the core rules to disprove that irrespective of how wobbly the logic is or how implied other rules are. This directly the contradicts the deepstrike rule where is suddenly cares about things on a per model level.

You have that backwards, you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule, not the other way around. The rules system is permissive, which means nothing is allowed unless you have permission to do so.

We're not about RAI here, but they might have been better altering the leader rule to clarify that the unit does not confer deployment rules onto the character and vice versa unless specified.

They do not need to "clarify that the unit does not confer deployment rules onto the character" because deployment rules do not transfer by virtue of nothing says they do. Permissive ruleset confirms this.

The character has to have the deepstrike rule on his Dataslate for him to have that rule. If it is not on his Dataslate, he does not have the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
As per the rules, the character is treated as part of the unit, the unit has the deepstrike rule, ergo the character has the deepstrike rule as it is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes.

100% false. You are confused about what "a single unit for all rules purposes" actually effects/means.

You will be unable to find any citation in the core rules to disprove that irrespective of how wobbly the logic is or how implied other rules are. This directly the contradicts the deepstrike rule where is suddenly cares about things on a per model level.

You have that backwards, you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule, not the other way around. The rules system is permissive, which means nothing is allowed unless you have permission to do so.

We're not about RAI here, but they might have been better altering the leader rule to clarify that the unit does not confer deployment rules onto the character and vice versa unless specified.

They do not need to "clarify that the unit does not confer deployment rules onto the character" because deployment rules do not transfer by virtue of nothing says they do. Permissive ruleset confirms this.

The character has to have the deepstrike rule on his Dataslate for him to have that rule. If it is not on his Dataslate, he does not have the rule.

OK, can you show me a citation for where it states the confines of "a single unit for all rules purposes" please? Your post is built on assumptions without any evidence. Arguably as is mine, which is the point. GW have not said if it transfer to the attachees or not.

It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

Dudeface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

You haven’t given a RAW interpretation as to why you think Keywords would cross over, so please don’t play the RAW/HYWPI silly game.

Aash wrote:
There’s also the circular logic of the deep strike keyword where a unit can only deep strike if every model in the unit has the keyword, but if only one model has the keyword it spreads to the unit, so every model in the unit does have the keyword, so why specify that you can only deep strike if every model in the unit has the keyword….

A)deep strike is ability, not keywora.
B) unip can have keyword that isn't on every model. For example tson terminator. Unit has psyker. Everv model doesn't. Abilities that require unit have psyker works. Abilities that require model have don't if model in question is reqular terminator.

Dudeface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

I gave you the RAW when I said "you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule..."

Can you provide a citation for applying Deepstrike to a model that does not have the Deepstrike rule?

Unless you have something that states Deeptrike is applied to models without the Deepstrike rule, then Deeptrike does not apply to models without the Deepstrike rule. (Because the rules are permissive and something needs to say it does, or it does not).

FAQ is absolutely not needed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

I gave you the RAW when I said "you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule..."

Can you provide a citation for applying Deepstrike to a model that does not have the Deepstrike rule?

Unless you have something that states Deeptrike is applied to models without the Deepstrike rule, then Deeptrike does not apply to models without the Deepstrike rule. (Because the rules are permissive and something needs to say it does, or it does not).

FAQ is absolutely not needed.

The attached character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, the unit has the deepstrike rule, if that deepstrike rule applies to the unit, it also applies to the attached character.

Edit: I'm not saying this is how it's intended to work, I'm saying that this is how the rules represent as written and its getting tiring people just basically responding with "no that's not how it works" without having no RAW back up or repeating things from earlier.

No. Unit can have something without every model having it. Note how deep strike itself says so...

Next you claim bodyguard armed with leaders weapons as well...

Dudeface wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

I gave you the RAW when I said "you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule..."

Can you provide a citation for applying Deepstrike to a model that does not have the Deepstrike rule?

Unless you have something that states Deeptrike is applied to models without the Deepstrike rule, then Deeptrike does not apply to models without the Deepstrike rule. (Because the rules are permissive and something needs to say it does, or it does not).

FAQ is absolutely not needed.

The attached character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, the unit has the deepstrike rule, if that deepstrike rule applies to the unit, it also applies to the attached character.

Edit: I'm not saying this is how it's intended to work, I'm saying that this is how the rules represent as written and its getting tiring people just basically responding with "no that's not how it works" without having no RAW back up or repeating things from earlier.

So you’re misrepresenting your hot take as irrefutable RAW, gotcha. Boring way to discuss in here as it just gets silly. You don’t have backup yet are screaming for proof from others. Sure sure.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It means “if you shoot at them, they’re one unit”, “if you play a Strat they’re one unit” etc. they’re one unit. If they Charge you make one Charge roll. This kind of thing is what it means.

It in no way states that Keywords get shared. A couple of rules do require all models to have a certain keyword, ergo Keywords aren’t shared or this would be redundant.

Seems an FAQ is needed to convince some folk even though others find it clear in intention.

I'm looking for a RAW interpretation and you're falling back on inferences and a HYWPI conclusion. So I think we agree that a FAQ is needed.

I gave you the RAW when I said "you have to prove that the Deepstrike rule gets applied to a model that is not on a Dataslate with the Deepstrike rule..."

Can you provide a citation for applying Deepstrike to a model that does not have the Deepstrike rule?

Unless you have something that states Deeptrike is applied to models without the Deepstrike rule, then Deeptrike does not apply to models without the Deepstrike rule. (Because the rules are permissive and something needs to say it does, or it does not).

FAQ is absolutely not needed.

The attached character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, the unit has the deepstrike rule, if that deepstrike rule applies to the unit, it also applies to the attached character.

Edit: I'm not saying this is how it's intended to work, I'm saying that this is how the rules represent as written and its getting tiring people just basically responding with "no that's not how it works" without having no RAW back up or repeating things from earlier.

So you’re misrepresenting your hot take as irrefutable RAW, gotcha. Boring way to discuss in here as it just gets silly. You don’t have backup yet are screaming for proof from others. Sure sure.

Rule 4 of YMDC:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

The point is if rule A (they're 1 unit for all rules purposes) and rule B (all models in a unit have to have rule X) are in conflict, which they are, an FAQ is needed.

Except nowhere it says abilities and keywords transfer. Unit can have 1 without other models having it.

Intercessors don't get 4++ just by captain joining up. Terminators with lightning claws don't get extra wound because captain with shield joins up.

tneva82 wrote:
Except nowhere it says abilities and keywords transfer. Unit can have 1 without other models having it.

Intercessors don't get 4++ just by captain joining up. Terminators with lightning claws don't get extra wound because captain with shield joins up.

In which case would you agree anti-psyker doesn't do anything to a unit containing an attached psyker?

Psyker is a keyword, and a unit has all the keywords of the models it contains. So it does something

Deep strike is an ability, and on a data sheet. Your concept of "one unit" doesn't work, as you're claiming they'd have all the special rules as well, or all war gear, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Psyker is a keyword, and a unit has all the keywords of the models it contains. So it does something

Deep strike is an ability, and on a data sheet. Your concept of "one unit" doesn't work, as you're claiming they'd have all the special rules as well, or all war gear, etc.

That's what it says. Again, not logical, likely unintended, but that's the wording.

Also can you tell me where it says a unit has all the keywords of its composites?

Yes, it's based on goon hammer who have access to the full rules, which show that keywords get collated, but nothing else does.

That's not what "one unit for all rules purposes" means.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's based on goon hammer who have access to the full rules, which show that keywords get collated, but nothing else does.

That's not what "one unit for all rules purposes" means.

OK, where does it say what that means? Goonhammer mentioning something offhandedly isn't a good enough source for YMDC AFAIK. I'm getting bored of this and I'm sure you are. You cannot point me to a written definition for any of these things and can't actually give an objective answer. Nobody can, because as per rules released so far, they don't exist.

So one unit for all rules purposes, to you,,means that they all get an extra wound cos there's a SS captain in there?

No. Nothing in that states they have one data sheet. In order to collate abilities together, they'd have to be a single data sheet.

Same as now, key words transfer. Not abilities. Not wargear.

Dudeface wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's based on goon hammer who have access to the full rules, which show that keywords get collated, but nothing else does.

That's not what "one unit for all rules purposes" means.

OK, where does it say what that means? Goonhammer mentioning something offhandedly isn't a good enough source for YMDC AFAIK. I'm getting bored of this and I'm sure you are. You cannot point me to a written definition for any of these things and can't actually give an objective answer. Nobody can, because as per rules released so far, they don't exist.

well, now we can. designers commentary is out, which includes the following:

designers commentary, page 7 wrote:Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models

Source: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/KBvH5h3oY5QREpmG.pdf

Not even keywoids. Unit has all keywords. All models don't.

Dudeface wrote:
The attached character is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, the unit has the deepstrike rule, if that deepstrike rule applies to the unit, it also applies to the attached character.

Edit: I'm not saying this is how it's intended to work, I'm saying that this is how the rules represent as written and its getting tiring people just basically responding with "no that's not how it works" without having no RAW back up or repeating things from earlier.

That is 100% not how that works. Just because one model has a special rule, does not mean every model in that unit gets that special rule.

You need to have a citation that states that rules transfer to models without that rule (Like auras do) otherwise other models do not get the special rule of a single model that is in the unit.

tneva82 wrote:
Not even keywoids. Unit has all keywords. All models don't.

Good callout.

Glad they tackled this one early.