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.

I should have been more specific that I was referring to the 4+ Invulnerable and the +1A as not being special rules.

I've gone back to the codexes that I have and looked through them and I'm not going to say that they use certain printing conditions so that they will save money. That is no where in the rules and I think that would continue the line of thinking that we can't trust what is written. I will however say that from all of the examples I've looked through, the assertion that frgsinwntr made is more than likely correct. Special Rules that are listed for Snikrot and Zagstruk are different than Ghazghkull or even Zogwort, because Snikrot is an upgradde. I've checked this against all units and not just ICs. The Forces of the Orks section, or even the Forces of the Eldar, Space Marines and Chaos, which are all the same (funny Necron, Choas Daemon and Tryanid are labled differently) all describe each unit entry from the army list. In the Forces section there are listings for Unit Type, Special Rules, and Wargear. These listings are the same if you go to the Army list section in the back where it lists points cost. My example that I've checked being a Wraithlord. It is not an IC it is a Heavy support Monsterous Creature. In fact that is list as a Special Rule in both sections. Along with fearless and wraithsight.

Using the above I can see that this is the way that the codex authors use these sections. Which would means that the Ambush Special Rule under Snikrot is a Special Rule that would be effected by pg 48 of the BRB. By my own understanding of the rules Ambush doesn't say that an IC would be effected, and Ghazghkull would not be able to tag along.

I can understand how everyone is trying to interpret the line where something is a special rule and when something is not. I don't think that there is too much that has to be stated for the this test to be proven. I believe that it really is just looking at the unit entry and there is a section that is an exact match. It's labled Special Rules. Not Unit special rules, not Upgrade special rules. So if there is something listed in this section, that is what pg. 48 is refering to. I believe that if the developers wanted the Painboys granting of FNP to be limited they would have listed the Dok's Tools in the Special Rules and not in a different section i.e. wargear. I do think that it is going farther than needed to say that all items a unit can take get applied to sections other than the ones they are listed in. Just because Dok's Tools grant a Universial Special Rule doesn't mean that it is added into the other section. You argue that is how it works, while I can argue that there is nothing saying it does. Persoanlly that sounds rather Zen, because it is not listed it works but also because it is not listed is doesn't. Which one is the right answer?

I'm not trying to make persoanl attacks at anyone here. I'm trying to just rephrase my points from different perspectives to help convey my understanding of the rules.

Zero

The exception from pg 48 is provided by the words "his unit."

This is different then Plague Marines FNP. The Plague Marine unit and each member has FNP. And only the PM have FNP. FNP is a built in ability for them - of course they can't grant it to someone else.

Dok's Tools on the other hand give/grant/allow the "unit" of the painboy/grotsnik to have FNP. The unit can change during the game through the addition/subtraction of IC's. It's still the unit the painboy/grotsnik is with - "his unit."

Show me a rule where it says that "his unit" only applies to the original unit. You can't because it doesn't exist.

edit: BTW, FNP is not listed under "Special Rules" for the Nob section. Nor is it listed under Mad Dok Grotsnik's special rules. Neither is it listed under the Painboy description as a special rule - it's under the wargear description.

For the same reason, I do not think you can attach an IC to snikrot and his kommandos and use Ambush as it is listed as a special rule and therefore the restriction of pg 48 would come into effect.

Given that 'unit' has more than one definition, that clearly is NOT specific enough to pass pg. 48, budro. Beyond that, you're missing the sequence of things:

1) You purchase Nobz. No FNP.
2) You purchase the upgrade character Painboy, Unit now has FNP.
3) IC goes to join the unit - doesn't have FNP. FNP doesn't say a unit with it confers it to a joining IC. No FNP for IC.

Check pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

Hero - does an IC who wears Terminator Armor have the Deep Strike special rule, even if it is not listed in the back of the Codex under that unit's special rules?

Is Dok's Tools a piece of wargear, or a special rule? It's a piece of wargear. Thus there is no way it would ever be listed under "special rules" in the back of the book.

Why would FNP not be added to the "Special Rules" upon the purchase of the Painboy? That section very clearly states it is for any special rules which apply to the unit. If FNP is provided by an upgrade character, then it now applies to the unit and thus gets listed there as well.

That's logical, but there aren't any rules to back it up. This has come to a question of a static or fluid definition of unit.

Does the special rule only apply to the unit it was purchased for, or is it given to anything that may join the unit during the course of the game?

At this point, it looks very similar to the shootaboy/powerklaw nob argument. That also came down to what step you thought upgrades happened in the theoretical sequence of purchasing a unit. At what point do you buy upgrades for a unit? If you purchase the painboy off of the first 5 nobs, and then buy more, would those nobs get FNP? If they do, why wouldn't a new unit member (which is what an attached IC would be) gain the same advantages as his fellows?

Order of operations for purchasing units from a codex has, as far as I know, never been spelled out. If the Tools were meant to lose their ability once they hit the table, or were only good for one shot, they would say that. As long as they exist, everything in that unit gains the FNP ability.

The argument you are laying out is that wargear with a constant effect only happens once. If you took a KFF and had 2 units within 6" at the start of the game, they have a 5+ cover save. When they move away, they lose it. This is very similar to how Doc's tools work. Anything within the unit has FNP, whether it be the doc or attached characters.

The source is the issue with this rule. FNP isn't a unit special rule, precisely because it is not in the Special Rules section for that unit. There are no restrictions to what wargear can effect besides those the wargear itself puts in place. The rules only limit what special rules pass between characters and units. Plague marines are an excellent example of this.

Many pieces of wargear do modify stat lines. Chaos Marks, pieces of armor, and even an Attack squig. Those are one time upgrades. Others affect a certain area of the battlefield and need to be reevaluated each turn, often indicated by a measure of inches. In the case of some items, the range is one unit.

padixon wrote:
I disagree, it does have a purpose, what about Ork deffkoptas' hit and run rule, or Plague Marines/Death Company Marines FNP, or a Scout's Scout or infiltrate.

My point is there *are* units in this game that do have USRs and do not imply they work with anyone else in the unit, hence the IC rule, without the IC rule, than someone could imply since they are with the deffkoptas or whatever they get to use their special rule. *But* with a rule that says "his unit" or "the unit he is with" or any other variation, then we *do* have a USR that create a "specified" condition.

Well, the rules for USR cover that nicely since rules with asterisk are lost if either the unit or the IC do not have it (Hit and Run and Inflitrate, FNP is worded on a model basis so there is no worries that it carrys over). It seems the special rules them self give us ample clues about how they confer to ICs. So what is the point of the "Special Rules" rule? If the normal way things work is that rules that confer to "his unit" applies on all members without exceptions why then p.48? Are they saying that unless the rules says "his unit" the IC is not granted the ability?

padixon wrote:
It is not "stretching" the word or definition of "unit". Because quite frankly, you can't. There *is* a definition of the word "unit" in game terms right on pg. 3. And it is a very very simple definition. In fact their are only a few "types of units in the game"

1) MC
2) Vehicle
3) Lone Hero (this is what GW put, not me)
4) Large, powerful character
4) group of several models that fight together.

That's it. Check it out. So, how can we possibly stretch the definition of 'unit'? You are a unit or you are not. And their are no "non-units" in the game of Wh40k.

Well saying there is something called an original unit is stretching things a bit. But I agree with everything else there.

padixon wrote:
The IC is either with the unit and a part of it or he is not. There is *no* middle ground. And the rule simply says a USR or *codex* special rule must "specify" thats it. It clearly does not mention anything about *any* rule needing to say the words "IC" in them.

"his unit" or any other variation *does* comply with "specify" while units like *Death Company* do not have a rule that specifies they work for/with other 'units'.

simply put, you are either in the unit or not. No Middle Ground.

Yes, there is no middle ground. The IC is a part of the unit, we can agree on that much.

Ok, here is why I think the rest does not compute.

p.48 wrote:When an independent character joins a unit he might, it might have different special rules from those of the unit.

Here it says the IC has to be a part of the unit.

p.48 wrote:Unless specified in the rule it self(...), the units special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the characters special rules are not conferred upon the unit.

For arguments sake lets say I agree with you. Here is how I would then read this sentence: "Unless the rules say that they effect other then the person with the rule it does not confer to the IC." Right? Or to put it differently: "The rule has to indicate that it affects other than the source with wording like "his unit" if it is to be conferred to an IC".

Here is my argument:

1) The area of effect in each rule is given by the text of the rule. Eternal Warrior/FNP/etc. only affect the models with the rule hence the wording "the model". Infiltrate/Fleet/etc. affect units so if an IC without the ability joins them it is lost. Fearless/Stubborn/etc. specify how they interact with ICs. The rule on p.48 is therefor only stating what is already there if it is interpreted like you say but is otherwise an exception to how IC interact with Special Rules.

2) Since we agree that a unit includes ALL members of a unit we can assume that when a rule says "his unit" it means ALL members. This is the basis of how abilities are conferred and now we have the rule for this interaction. The rule is then that unless otherwise specified, Special Rules "carried" by a member of a unit, that say that the rules affect other members in that unit (with wording like "his unit"), affect all members. This may be complicating the wording but I am going to assume that you agree. If p.48 is like you claim it would be saying that this is how special rules work for ICs. The problem is that this is how they work for ALL units in the game and the rule on p.48 would then be nothing more than an reference to the USR chapter.

I posted this in the new 'poll' thread, but I'm not sure that will survive, as we already have a discussion ongoing, so I am posting what I believe to be my entire argument in one big post.

I'm going to try and put my entire argument into one gigantic post, because I feel that even Yakface is making a large and dangerous assumption:

The biggest problem that seems to be the major source of confusion on this issue is the various ways that GW uses the term "unit" throughout the game. For instance, IC's are part of the unit when dealing with Movement and Shooting phases, but only part of the time during the Assault phase, and only conditionally when dealing with special rules. The crux of this argument however, revolves entirely around a special rule.

1) When special rules are concerned, "his unit" is not specific enough to grant special rules back and forth between IC's and units they attach to or join.

Pg. 48 of the BRB says:

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 unit’s special rules are not conferred
upon the character, and the character’s special rules
are not conferred upon the unit.

By citing an example, the rulebook has given us everything we need to determine what constitutes "specific enough."

BRB "Stubborn wrote:Independent characters that are stubborn confer the
ability onto any unit that they join.

So here's our litmus test for what they mean by "specified in the rule itself." Let's look at the only other USRs that come close to this.

Fearless USR wrote:This special rule is gained by any independent character
joining a fearless unit. However, as long as a fearless
character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he loses
this special rule.

Night Vision/Acute Senses wrote:Characters with this rule confer it onto any unit they
join, as long as they are part of the unit. Units with this
rule confer it onto any characters joining them, as long
as they are part of the unit.

I believe it to be fairly obvious that when a USR or special rule of any kind is supposed to be shared between ICs and attached Units, the level of specificity that we should be looking for has been clearly exemplified. We should look for some sort of sentence that expressly mentions an interaction between a "character" and a "unit." All three of these examples have such clarity. Feel No Pain has absolutely nothing in it about IC's or Units giving the ability to those who join them. Making assumptions about what constitutes 'specific' when GW has seen fit to show us precisely what they mean by "specified in the rule itself" is moving dangerously away from RAW and begins to open up potentially game-breaking combinations if you don't uphold the standard that they've given us. (More examples cited at the end of this post)

2) A 'unit' can be defined in several different ways, so IC/Unit interactions with special rules, must be clearly defined as in the above examples.

BRB wrote:A unit will usually consist of several models that fight
as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or
powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous
alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all
of these things are referred to as ‘units’.

Ork Codex wrote:Unit Composition: This lists the number and type of models that make up one unit. For an Ork Boyz mob, this is 10-30, while for single models like a Warboss, the composition will be 1.

In just these two examples, we have several different definitions of what constitutes a unit (big thanks to GW!...). So when a Codex says 'his unit,' which definition is it referring to? Given the ambiguity of this question, when dealing with special rules of any kind, we once again are forced to look for specifics because using an ambiguous definition does not in any way, constitute "specified."

3) Even Wargear has specific text when it is supposed to be conferred to attached units or ICs.

Codex DA wrote:Lion Helm: The Lion Helm provides Azreal, and all models in any unit he joins, with a 4+ Invulnerable Save.

Now this is just one example, but it happens to be from the Codex that I play and am familiar with. I honestly don't feel like going through every Codex in the game to find more. Whether you agree that constitutes a precedent or not, it is still an example of even Wargear being specific.

4) Even if the source of a special rule is Wargear or an upgrade character, the model/unit still has that special rule.

Ork Codex wrote:Special Rules: Any special rules which apply to the unit will be listed here.

(Note this text is also found in nearly every Codex) Special Rules are not listed in the unit box when they are conditional upon the ownership of Wargear or an upgrade character. For example: An Independent Character that wears Terminator armor still has the Deep Strike special rule, even though it may not be listed under this section in the back of the Codex. Why? Because the Terminator Armor expressly grants the Deep Strike special rule. The special rule clearly applies to the unit, despite being granted by a piece of Wargear, so it would become listed under the unit's "Special Rules" until that Wargear was no longer present.. This is a possessive phrase: if a unit has a special rule (from any source), then it falls under the definition of "unit's special rule." And as stated in the beginning, "unit's special rules" fall under the restrictions on pg.48.

More Special Rule examples that demonstrate "specified in the rule itself":

Litanies of Hate wrote:...a Chaplain or Interrogator-Chaplain, and all members of any Dark Angels squad he has joined, leads or is attached to...

One Scalpel Short of a Medpack wrote:...He is Fearless, as is any unit he joins...This bloodlust is conferred onto any unit he joins.

arnaroe wrote:We are talking about how rules interact within a unit, not how abilities affect other units. Even though it is an "special" kind of ability I do not agree that it falls under the definition of "special abilities" on p. 48. Basically, Doom is not a special rule that confers from a Farseer to his unit (it would be pretty pointless that way) so comparing Doom with FNP can not hold up.

Doom doesn't apply to a friendly unit but its an excelent example of an ability being used by a model to effect 'a unit,' and that logically if the IC is part of a unit he would be included in the effects of that ability.

Mechanically, its the same. Model in the unit itself can use an ability to effect a unit, but all of a sudden people seem to think that the situation has changed. The way the rule is put in place is the same, something effects the models in the unit, then theres a consequence of that. That might be being in Doom's area of effect and suffering re-rolls to wound, or it might being in the Painboy's area of effect and gaining FNP.

The fact that some abilities provide a USR to the models isn't really a factor because its being applied after the model joins the unit, before he joins the unit the painboy isn't going to have diddly squat to do with him.

Yes, it was wrong of me to pick random rules to compare and draw conclusions. However, in my opinion we have to assume that all rules that GW make are perfect and apply them to the game as they are written (in the sense of how they affect the game). Even though there are obvious mistakes we just have to learn to live with those, adapt if you will, since RAI can lead to nothing but guessing. If we are going to disbelieve every vague wording that GW puts out there we might end up arguing over the legitimacy of the movement phase or something similar. In a nutshell I think this is the whole point of RAW, not that each rule has to be interpreted only on basis of its words but as a part of a system and from the perspective that the designers intended to write them they way they are.

But we know they aren't perfect (errata are simple enough proof of that), so making the the assumtion that they are is a faulty premise. Therefore conclusions drawn from that premise are also faulty.

I'm not advocating that everything be made wide open, just that the specific demand for "and attached ICs" not be the only acceptable way to include ICs within a rule's effect. Simply being in the unit puts the IC within the special rule's area of effect,

The reason I was wrong with the "Painboy not gaining FNP" was that it was inconsistent with other cases where a upgraded character confers abilities to his unit. Since that character is an irremovable part of the unit there is no basis in the rules to exclude him from the definition of "his unit". This is how abilities seem to work in general (the source grants all models in the unit its abilites) and we would need a special rule to deviate form that (like the one on p.48).

Enter p. 48 where it says that the rules MUST suggest the inclusion if an IC for him to gain special abilities.

You're misquoting, nothing is stated about "special ablities", only special rules. Thats a key difference.

Now you are guilty of drawing conclusions from a text that does not give you the big picture (do peoples writings predict their playstyle/honesty?).

Clearly I drew an incorrect conclusion, for that I apologise. I'm sorry if I caused you any offense.


@Trekari.
I'm not decided if its worth my time to be writing a responce to you, IF I do defeat all your points again you'll probably throw your third trantrum and leave the thread forever, again. Gitzbitah refuted your list of claims very well so I won't repeat him, I do note that you decided to ignore him. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt.

Wargear is not the special rule.

Thats right, it is however the mechanism by which the special rule is handed out. And a mechanism that includes the whole unit, not just part of it.

Does FNP apply to the unit while Painboy is alive? Yes. So it would be listed there after you purchase the upgrade character. Thus the unit has the special rule, and falls under the possessive phrase "unit's special rules" on pg. 48 BRB.

Ok, so I write an army list, then I look in the codex and see if FNP has appeared in the nobs unit entry?
*opens page 33 of the ork codex*
Nope not there: so you're wrong. Nevermind.

It would be worth your time if you could conjure up legitimate rebuttals and defeat my points in the first place, let alone 'again.'

As it stands, you are cherry-picking your reply and pretending that it doesn't go against the rules and that there is only one definition of unit, and that wargear gets magically handed out to anyone who joins a unit, etc.

Basically, you're dead in the water on this one.

My post above is not one you can refute point for point. Not because you aren't smart enough, but because the rules aren't on your side of the issue.

I do credit you however, for being completely ridiculous in your attempts. i.e. Because the book doesn't re-write itself, I must be wrong. Classic!

Hymirl wrote:

Enter p. 48 where it says that the rules MUST suggest the inclusion if an IC for him to gain special abilities.

You're misquoting, nothing is stated about "special ablities", only special rules. Thats a key difference.

Now you are guilty of drawing conclusions from a text that does not give you the big picture (do peoples writings predict their playstyle/honesty?).

Clearly I drew an incorrect conclusion, for that I apologise. I'm sorry if I caused you any offense.


@Trekari.
I'm not decided if its worth my time to be writing a responce to you, IF I do defeat all your points again you'll probably throw your third trantrum and leave the thread forever, again. Gitzbitah refuted your list of claims very well so I won't repeat him, I do note that you decided to ignore him. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt.

Wargear is not the special rule.

Thats right, it is however the mechanism by which the special rule is handed out. And a mechanism that includes the whole unit, not just part of it.

Does FNP apply to the unit while Painboy is alive? Yes. So it would be listed there after you purchase the upgrade character. Thus the unit has the special rule, and falls under the possessive phrase "unit's special rules" on pg. 48 BRB.

Ok, so I write an army list, then I look in the codex and see if FNP has appeared in the nobs unit entry?
*opens page 33 of the ork codex*
Nope not there: so you're wrong. Nevermind.

can you reference where I can find the FNP ability as apposed to the FNP special rule? I can't find it.

Trekari wrote:It would be worth your time if you could conjure up legitimate rebuttals and defeat my points in the first place, let alone 'again.'

But you still didn't respond to Gitzbitah who did refute every one your points in the list you gave me, why is that? I'd be most intrested to see you try... I think all this huffing and puffing is to attempt to distract everyone from the fact that you can't. Feel free to on pretending you have the moral high ground, if you try hard enough you might even convince yourself...

As it stands, you are cherry-picking your reply and pretending that it doesn't go against the rules and that there is only one definition of unit, and that wargear gets magically handed out to anyone who joins a unit, etc.

The IC rules clearly state the IC becomes part of the unit, try reading them. The only exception to that applies to Unit Special Rules, which the painboy's ability isn't and won't be no matter how much you squeal to the contary. You lose. Give it up already.

I do credit you however, for being completely ridiculous in your attempts. i.e. Because the book doesn't re-write itself, I must be wrong. Classic!

FNP is not listed in the special rules section for Nobs, therefore when you claimed it was a unit special rule you where wrong, the fact I chose to prove it in a manner that ridiclues your point and makes you look like a complete idiot is merely for my personal entertainment.

Just a reminder

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other readers' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments. When you read something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to the post than you initially thought. Re-read it keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in written form. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the discussion board in general if this kind of interchange is found here.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc. are strictly forbidden. Remember that we have readers of all ages.

Making fun of someone for your entertainment is breaking this rule... this goes both ways for anyone posting.

In my large post above I refute every claim that has been made against my position.

You were the one I was curious to hear replies from, given that you accused ME of leaps of faith, but mention nothing about your wild assumptions.

If you don't believe the unit has the FNP USR while the painboy is alive, then I hope you don't try taking FNP rolls for it.

If they do have the FNP USR, then I'd like for you to carefully point out on pg. 48 where it says "...unless specified in the wargear itself" because when I read it, it makes mention the RULE has to specify. Last I checked, FNP was the rule, Dok's Tools was the wargear.

So while you look up the FNP ability for frgsinwntr, please also show me where in the FNP USR itself, that attached IC's get it if they join a unit that has it.

Hymirl wrote:the fact I chose to prove it in a manner that ridiclues your point and makes you look like a complete idiot is merely for my personal entertainment.

That's right on the line of a personal attack, which are not allowed on Dakka. Please refrain from doing so, and instead attack the post itself.

If you have any questions on this or any other Dakka policy, feel free to PM me or any of the other mods.

Thank you.

- Iorek

frgsinwntr wrote:can you reference where I can find the FNP ability as apposed to the FNP special rule? I can't find it.

I (politly) suggest you re-read my post. I never said FNP is an abilty, I said Doks Tools are an abilty. FNP is a special rule that results from that abilty.

Trekari wrote:You were the one I was curious to hear replies from, given that you accused ME of leaps of faith, but mention nothing about your wild assumptions.

Very well, these are my responses to you the points you raised to me. Your argument is, again, destroyed.

Wargear-
#2- Absolutely correct. When FNP is a unit special rule, it is not transferred to attached ICs.

#3- Dok's tools- A painboy is an expert at repairing the sturdy Ork physique using a variety of mean looking tools. He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

Even when a piece of wargear creates identical effects to a special rule, it is still wargear. If we applied the RAW argument to this piece of Wargear not only would Mad Doc Grotnik's unit not have FNP... but neither would he. Although he possesses this piece of gear, he is not defined as a Painboy, and thus cannot confer FNP to himself or others, if it is the Painboy and not the wargear that gives this ability. The special rules section of IC (p48) are very clear. Unit special rules do not transfer to IC unless the rule itself specifies. Dok's Tools do not fall under this category. A Painboy without Dok's tools would not have or grant FNP.

The further absence of FNP, or grants FNP from the Special Rules section of the Painboy shows us that it is not a Special rule, by RAW.


#4- ICs are restricted from joining 'vehicle squadrons (see the Vehicles section), and units that always consist of a single model (like most vehicles and monstrous creatures. They can join other independent characters though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!' p48.

This statement lets us know that an independent character's unit size is not fixed. In other words, he becomes part of the unit he joins. At that point, he would fall under the definition of being in the unit of a Painboy wielding Dok's tools, minus the exclusions GW went out of their way to list. The wargear is not shared between units, it is only used by the new and temporary unit formed by the attached IC and the squad, mob or whatever you wish to call the original unit.

#5- Also absolutely correct.
#6- Very true. However the FNP is conferred only by Painboys with Dok's Tools. The Painboy has to be alive to use it, in much the same way that the operator of a Meltagun must be alive for the unit to fire it.

Your responce is eagerly anticipated, obviously I couldn't find the post in which you say you defended your position so if you could kindly repeat it for me that would be great.

If you don't believe the unit has the FNP USR while the painboy is alive, then I hope you don't try taking FNP rolls for it.

I suggest you re-read my post. Nowhere did I suggest the unit did not have the FNP USR, merely that while they have it its not because its a Unit Special Rule.

A 'Unit Special Rule' being a discrete item that is found in the listing for a unit's special rules, if its not there its not one of them. And if its not one of then the prohibition against Unit special rules being shared to characters is not in effect.

Until you prove that FNP or the Dok's tools are a Unit Special Rule, it won't be prevented from being passed onto the IC. Its like a road sign saying only 30 miles an hour, yes its a rule but if I'm not in that street I don't have to follow it.

While you can attempt all the logical deduction you like, you don't have that proof and without it you can't prove that the Painboy's bonuses fall under it's juristiction and are thus prevented from being passed to the IC.

Perhaps you are the one who should re-read the rules.

The exact quote is "..unit's special rules..." This is not Unit Special Rules, but the possessive term "unit's," which refers to any special rule possessed by the unit.

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

As for your supposed rebuttal...perhaps you shouldn't post other people's responses when they are wrong.

My rebuttal, which can be found here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/224772.page#484031

Refutes every point brought against me, including the ones you copied.

It's a little late and I've had kind of a long day. So I'm not going to be able to take the approproate amount of time to respond correctly. But from what I remeber off the top of my head, Trekari, the listing for deep strike is made in the description of Terminator armor. No it's not listed underthe Special Rules Section of the unit entry because the armor is listed in it's wargear. You then would reference the armor in the approproate section.

Again, I'm not sure where you were headed with this line of reasoning, but I can check in the morning.

Zero

Trekari wrote:Perhaps you are the one who should re-read the rules.

The exact quote is "..unit's special rules..." This is not Unit Special Rules, but the possessive term "unit's," which refers to any special rule possessed by the unit.

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

That's why you're wrong. The Dok's Tools are not the unit's special rule - they are the painboy's special rule. They belong to the Painboy, not the unit. Therefore not covered by p48. Apothecaries are also not covered by p48 as once again the special rule belongs to the model (via wargear) not to the unit.

Here's some more musings of mine. I apologize since I know much of this has already been posted several times over, but I just wanted to collect my overall thoughts in one place and this thread seems like as good a place as any for it.


Page 48 of the rulebook, in the Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units: Special Rules it says:

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified otherwise in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

There are really two parts of this rule that can be interpreted differently:

1) What exactly is a "special rule"?
2) What exactly is meant by the term "specified otherwise"?



What is a Special Rule?

There are really four possibilities that I can imagine anyone coming to. In this instance, the term "special rules" refers to:


A) only the 'universal special rules' found in the rulebook. This interpretation would be based on the idea that this rule was written poorly and was meant only to include those special rules found in the rulebook itself.

B) just the 'universal special rules' found in the rulebook and the rules found in the 'special rules' sections in each codex. This would not include rules generated from wargear, psychic powers, etc, so even if a piece of wargear provides a unit with a universal special rule (such as a Space Marine Narthecium), it still would not count as a 'special rule' in this case.

C) just the 'universal special rules' found in the rulebook, the rules found in the 'special rules' sections in each codex and wargear, psychic powers, etc, that provide a unit with a 'universal special rule' (such as the Space Marine Narthecium that provides a unit with the 'Feel No Pain' universal special rule).

D) the 'universal special rules' in the rulebook and any additional rule found in a codex (i.e. pretty much anything found outside of the main rulebook). This is the broadest possible interpretation of the word "special", in that the basic rulebook rules would be "normal" and anything outside of that would be "special".



What exactly is meant by the term "specified otherwise"?

I see three real possibilities:


E) The strictest possible interpretation: the example given in the rule (that of the universal special rule "stubborn") is the 'model' for what specificity should be expected in rules. Namely, any and every rule must explicitly say it applies to independent characters joining the unit (and vice versa) in order for it to do so. Any other phrasing results in the basic restriction taking precedence and the special rule not being transferred from the character to the unit (and vice versa).

F) A slightly looser interpretation: The same as 'A' above, but in addition, if a rule states that it applies to "every (or any) model in the unit" then that wording is specific enough to grant the independent character joining the unit to benefit from it (as he is a model in the unit).

G) The loosest interpretation: Any special rule that specifies in its rules text that it applies to the unit would be gained by an independent character joining the unit. The basis for this interpretation would be that the 'universal special rules' in the rulebook for the most part do not naturally explain who benefits from these rules as they are generic listings and are simply expected to be applied to a unit via their codex entry. Special rules in codexes not only explain how the rule works but they often also contain a description of who gets to benefit from this special rule. It can be rightfully said that these rules "specify" who gets utilize them and in this way any special rule that "specifies" that it is conferred to a unit would therefore also be specific enough to be conferred to any IC joined to the unit as well.



Originally, I was of the opinion that this rule on page 48 was meant to be applied as broadly as possible and its goal was to prevent ICs from gaining any and all types of special rules by joining a unit. I think a large part of this hard-line approach in my head was fueled by my opposition to the idea of an IC joining Snikrot and ambushing from the opponent's table edge, and looking to the rules for a way to stop this. Although to be fair, I do think that that the combination of 'C' and 'E' above is the purest representation of the RAW in my opinion (which is one of the reasons I've been pushing that interpretation in these threads).

However, the more I've looked at special rules in the codexes the more uneasy I've become with this interpretation. I *do* think that there is a fundamental difference between rules like universal special rules that units just 'have' and spceical rules that, in the rule itself, specifies who that rule applies to; something that is fairly common to the special rules that special characters have. I'm now thinking that this specificity is enough to allow independent characters joining the unit to benefit from the special rule.

While I would like to believe that every codex author is intimately knowledgeable of the page 48 rule regarding special characters, I think the reality is that most of the authors, like most players follow the simplest approach: If the rule specifically says that it applies to the unit then it does indeed apply to every model in that unit, joined ICs included.


So coming back to Snikrot, based on my new feelings above, that means I now think that Snikrot's ability should be able to be passed onto an IC? Not exactly. Although I do now think that by the RAW ICs joined to Snikrot's unit should benefit from his special rule, the fact remains that in the past their have been some pretty big loopholes left in the rules regarding specialized deployment.

In the Eldar codex, for example it was possible for Autarchs joined to certain Aspect Warrior units to deep strike into play even though they didn't have the equipment to Deep Strike themselves. In last year's version of our FAQ we ruled against this concept and GW went ahead and adopted those rulings into their official FAQs word-for-word.

In the poll thread on the topic of ICs gaining the FNP ability by joining a mob with a Dok, currently 75% of the people play that he does benefit from this ability and I think you'd find a somewhat similar ratio if you polled things like the Waaagh Banner, SM Narthecium, etc. I do think this is a grey area in the rules (as there are multiple valid interpretations of the rule as I've posted above) and therefore it would just be crazy to rule against how so many people naturally read the rule or tend to play regardless of what they think the RAW say in this case.

Therefore, I'm thinking the best answer is to go with a 'C' & 'G' approach for a ruling but at the same time to go ahead and single out Snikrot (and perhaps Shrike) for a 'rules change' just because it is one of those rare cases where it is both over-the-top abusive and incredibly non-sensical to have a bike rider (for example) infiltrating along with a bunch of sneaky guys.

Yakface,

I believe that C and E are not pure RAW interpretations.

For one, "unit's special rule" is not restricted in any way on pg. 48. If it's a special rule that a unit has, it is covered by this. Whether it is conveyed via wargear makes no difference, as they made no suggestion that the source matters at all.

This causes me to go with D as the first option - as multiple special Codex rules are also specific about their inclusion of ICs, such as Litanies of Hate, and One Scalpel Short of a Medpack.


Regarding your choice of G:

As to "unit" being specific enough: With the multiple definitions available for "unit," how can it possibly be specific enough compared to the other special rules examples? The very fact that "unit" has nearly six definitions in this game is enough to demonstrate that it isn't specific when compared to phrases such as, "Characters with this rule confer it onto any unit they join..."

The rules of a game cannot just be tossed aside under the assumption they are probably in error. If we are to assume GW is just lazy, where would the list of things I want changed be located? I'd like to throw a few things into the DA Errata since they're probably just not fixing it due to laziness.

Think about the various special rule interactions and you will see the danger in making the assumption that rules are flawed from laziness and don't mean what they actually say.

Also, if the majority of people play outside RAW, and you are making a rules-clarification document, shouldn't you be giving the correct answers without influence from a completely non-scientific poll? Isn't the first step of gameplay, learning to play the game correctly?

If I were writing a FAQ document, I'd make sure the answers were RAW first, and let each club/gaming group modify to house rules as they saw fit. Hopefully that is the direction you end up taking.

Hmmmm. You make some good points this time around, Trekari. I think I am starting to see where you are coming from.

I'm not entirely sure I agree about FAQs needing to agree with RAW first and foremost. I'd rather see them used to adjust areas where the rules are a bit silly in favour of smooth and sensible gameplay.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

Trekari wrote:Perhaps you are the one who should re-read the rules.

The exact quote is "..unit's special rules..." This is not Unit Special Rules, but the possessive term "unit's," which refers to any special rule possessed by the unit.

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

That's why you're wrong. The Dok's Tools are not the unit's special rule - they are the painboy's special rule. They belong to the Painboy, not the unit. Therefore not covered by p48. Apothecaries are also not covered by p48 as once again the special rule belongs to the model (via wargear) not to the unit.

To clear my point up

1) Dok's Tools are not a special rule. I am not sure where you are getting this from, but that is incorrect.
2) Does the unit have FNP while the Apothecary and Painboy are alive? Yes.
3) Thus FNP is one of the unit's special rules, because they have it. (Possessive noun)
4) The source of a special rule does not exempt it from pg. 48 - nothing in the rulebook says it's supposed to. You cannot create exemptions to a rule when the BRB doesn't. If a unit has a special rule, regardless of whether the source is a piece of wargear, an upgrade character, or an always-active rule, it follows pg. 48. NOTHING says exceptions exist depending on the source.

**EDIT** Hurrah, someone sees my POV! The hours of typing are starting to be worth it!

While the above statements are correct (imo), there are further points to be considered.

- The IC does not gain the unit's special rules in anyway or form, what is happening is that the IC having joined the unit now meets the criteria set forth by dok's tools to gain the FNP special rule from this item of wargear.

- This criteria must be an on going check through the game, otherwise the unit would be unable to loose FNP upon the painboys death.

- While this line of reasoning does allow things such as snikrot and flanking warbosses, which are clearly horrible, it is to me the simplest and most logical interpretation of the RAW.

Hurrah, someone sees my POV! The minutes of typing are starting to be worth it!

Except that the RULE must specify the interaction between characters and units. Nowhere does it say Wargear can remove this restriction.

FNP is the rule.

If the Painboy dies, the unit no longer has FNP. This does not change anything for the IC, who by RAW, was never granted FNP in the first place. It is not something that is checked every turn:

You bought the Nobz, and purchased the Painboy. That unit now has FNP. This is a default condition until the Painboy dies.

IC goes to join the unit during deployment. IC doesn't have FNP, and nothing in the FNP USR says the unit he joins gives it to him. Note that it must specify in the FNP entry itself.

IC ends up without FNP, while the Painboy's unit still has it. This is precisely what happens when the rule on pg. 48 comes into play and special rules don't specify otherwise.

IC continues to not have FNP, because the check is only made when joining a unit.

Painboy dies, and the Nobz no longer have FNP either, because the Painboy is gone.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

Trekari wrote:Perhaps you are the one who should re-read the rules.

The exact quote is "..unit's special rules..." This is not Unit Special Rules, but the possessive term "unit's," which refers to any special rule possessed by the unit.

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

That's why you're wrong. The Dok's Tools are not the unit's special rule - they are the painboy's special rule. They belong to the Painboy, not the unit. Therefore not covered by p48. Apothecaries are also not covered by p48 as once again the special rule belongs to the model (via wargear) not to the unit.

Are you saying the painboy is not part of the unit?

- Why should the critera only be checked upon purchase and painboy death?

- The unit he joins is not giving him the FNP USR, thats granted by the painboy via his wargear.

- Dok's tools granting FNP to his unit is in the ork codex and as it states in the USR section of the BRB, codex trumps BRB. Therefore regardless of what the USR states the painboy grants his units FNP.

1) Because it sets up a default condition that does not change until the Painboy goes away. You cannot simply "refresh your wargear" to suddenly apply a special rule to an Independent Character. The rules on how a unit's special rule (regardless of source) is granted or not granted to a joining IC is detailed on pg. 48. "Turn your wargear off, then turn it back on again" is not listed as a method of doing this.
2) It isn't granted by the wargear, because that is not the procedure for applying a unit's special rule to a character. The rule ITSELF must specify, which would be FNP. The unit has FNP, the IC does not. FNP doesn't say the IC gets it, so they don't.
3) Ork Codex does not contradict the BRB's definition of FNP. In fact, the Ork Codex does not define FNP at all, so unless you want to have a useless ability, you must use the definition in the USR section of the BRB. The wargear specifying "his unit" does not contradict the BRB saying the RULE must specify, and the source of the unit's special rule cannot be construed as an exception to pg. 48's rule, because the BRB doesn't say there are any exceptions to be made based on the source of the special rule.

Trekari wrote:1) Because it sets up a default condition that does not change until the Painboy goes away. You cannot simply "refresh your wargear" to suddenly apply a special rule to an Independent Character. The rules on how a unit's special rule (regardless of source) is granted or not granted to a joining IC is detailed on pg. 48. "Turn your wargear off, then turn it back on again" is not listed as a method of doing this.

But those rules don't tell you to 'refresh your wargear' either. If we held to your theory that you only checked who was in the wargears area of effect at the time of writing the list and when the model with it dies then you wouldn't be able to include ICs in that area of effect even if you where allowed. What you're saying is incompatable with the rules.

2) It isn't granted by the wargear, because that is not the procedure for applying a unit's special rule to a character. The rule ITSELF must specify, which would be FNP. The unit has FNP, the IC does not. FNP doesn't say the IC gets it, so they don't.

Yes it is, without doks tools a painboy wouldn't be able to do anything for anyone. Its that item that gives him the ability. Its that item that speicfies that the IC is included in the area of effect since hes part of the unit. What FNP says for or against it doesn't matter, its the doks tools that are deciding who gets effected by what.

1) Dok's Tools are not a special rule. I am not sure where you are getting this from, but that is incorrect

Absolulty correct, and thats they the prohibition against unit special rules being passed to ICs doesn't prevent Doks Tools from passing it's effects to attached characters. Excuse my picking this slightly out of context but its something I wanted to reinforce.

The fact remains that as long doks tools aren't one of the unit's special rules they won't be prohibited from acting upon an IC that joins the unit and as a result of that granting him FNP. Again FNP's opinon on whether it gets given to an IC that joins a unit with FNP is irrelevent since its not a question that is being asked in the situation at hand.

3) Ork Codex does not contradict the BRB's definition of FNP.

Thats right, it references it. I've deleted the rest of your point since its just you restating the previous one instead of being anything new.

As regards your previous typed refutations theres a problem.

I'm going to try and put my entire argument into one gigantic post

You did not directly respond to the points raised against you, by using a single monolith post you've evaded doing so and thus sidestepped the flaws that where pointed out. Basically you where cornered by the debate and instead of accepting that you just tried to gloss over it by starting from the beginning, using the same circular arguments that you've used several times already.

All you did in that summary was to explain the rule about unit's speical rules not appling to ICs, not relevenant to the situation since Dok's tools aren't a unit special rule so that won't do anything to stop it.
Then you found some examples of other rules with different wording. Again, not very relevent, I did note that you didn't include Embolden in your examples since it doesn't specificly include ICs yet has been clearifed to do so from GW. There is no consistent evidence to conclusive prove that ALL cases specificly state "and attached ICs"

Again I challenge you to respond to the listed points I repeated for you in my previous post.

Thanks for taking over there Hymirl, I went Christmas shopping as I get off work early.

As Hymirl has said:

Its not refreshing the wargear, it's applying a rule that is constantly in force to a unit that has changed its composition. You still haven’t said why it's always checking, you've just phrased it differently.

Dok's tools explicitly grant FNP, as stated in the codex.

Dok's tools reference FNP, but have their own way of allocating affected models.

- To me the strongest argument you have against FNP IC's is the definition of a unit approach, but even then I feel like it's a bit of a straw man and would side on the pro FNP side.