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.

Posted this in the warboss & painboy feel-no-pain thread where the conversation led, but it really goes beyond that. This is a list of all units that I could find where the status of an IC conferring a rule to 'his unit' or a wargear item conferring a rule to 'his unit' is in question on how this operates with attached independent characters which, by the rules do not confer rules onto a unit or IC unless specifically stated.

Mad Dok Grotsnik + Unit (Will Dok's tools confer FNP to a joined unit?)
Painboy & Nobs + IC (Will Dok's tools confer FNP to the joined IC?)
Waaagh banner & Nobs + IC (Is +1 WS conferred to the IC?) **This may be different since it uses the 'Mob' term, but we usually use 'Mob' and 'Unit' interchangeably.
** Retracted: Weirdboy & Ere'we go + Unit (Is the joined unit teleported along with the weirdboy?)
Boss Snikrot & Kommandos + IC (Does ambush allow an IC to attach prior to the game and come onto the board from any table edge with the kommandos?)
Kor'sarro Khan + Unit (Does Master of the hunt confer Hit-and-run and furious charge to a joined unit?)
Shrike + Unit (Does See but remain unseen confer Infiltrate to the joined Unit?)
** Retracted: Librarian powers now reference the Librarian and 'the unit he is with'. I think we're logical enough people to understand this, but dakka surprises me at times.
Apothecary & Command squad + IC (does narthecium confer FNP to joined IC?)
Chapter banner & Honor guard + IC (does the banner confer +1A to the joined IC?)

As these are all the same situation; rules-wise, we're in for some gameplay changes either way it goes I think.

Be careful not to be lured in by rules for Chaos icons, or SM Chaplains which clearly define that they work for a joined unit, or not for an attached IC. I believe that the list above is exactly the units affected by this weirdness, but I'll add anymore that pop up.

The Narthecium wargear description for the apothecary says that he gives FNP to "his squad." This is totally different from a painboy that gives FNP to "his unit" So a Marine IC would get FNP but not an Ork IC! /sarcasm off

This is not a "Painboy gives fnp to warboss flamewar part 2" thread. Discuss the rules, leave the bickering that killed the last thread where it belongs - in the last thread.

The minor differences are worth noting though:
Narthecium: "all models in his squad"
honor guard banner: "all models in the same unit"
Waagh banner: "A mob including the"
Painboy: "to his unit"
Weirdboy: "his unit" and later "any unit he is with"
Snikrot: "his unit"
Khan: "models in his unit"
Shrike: "models in his squad"
Librarian Force Dome / Gate: "any unit he is with"

So I'll retract the original statement that they are worded the same. There are subtle differences here.
"Any unit he is with" is pretty clear I think, we can throw those out.

Well this is the way I interpret it.

"all models" -- I think this would include the ability on anything that joins the unit. Although it would be worth checking with the opponent before the game starts.

"a mob" -- from the old ork codex a mob was any group of boyz that had come together for some reason. I would have to say this would allow for the benefit to go to anything in the unit. Again, discuss before game starts.

"his unit" -- like you pointed out, grey area. I would lean to say this excludes anything that joins. Discuss before and dice off/get a judge ruling.

"any unit he is with" -- I think this is very clear. It is specific in the fact it says when he joins a unit they get the benefit.

'models in his squad and models in his unit..." this is a tougher call. I will refrain from commenting since I don't want to do the research here.

Like you said these are all grey areas. I kinda long for the days when Andy Chambers wrote the codices... they were so much more consistent in wording.

I really do not understand why this is an issue. All of these different wording must have the same meaning since there are no rules that say otherwise. If they have different meaning how are you going to decide what means what when the rules them self do not cover it? The only logical way to interpret this is:

"all models in his squad" = "all models in the same unit" = "A mob including the" = "to his unit" = "his unit" = "any unit he is with" = "models in his unit" = "models in his squad"

The rules for an IC joining a unit are also clear. Only abilities that specifically say that they are conferred to the IC are conferred to him and vice versa.

arnaroe wrote:I really do not understand why this is an issue. All of these different wording must have the same meaning since there are no rules that say otherwise. If they have different meaning how are you going to decide what means what when the rules them self do not cover it? The only logical way to interpret this is:

"all models in his squad" = "all models in the same unit" = "A mob including the" = "to his unit" = "his unit" = "any unit he is with" = "models in his unit" = "models in his squad"

The rules for an IC joining a unit are also clear. Only abilities that specifically say that they are conferred to the IC are conferred to him and vice versa.

Yes I also agree with this. Though others, who I have on ignore, do not because it is a grey area its worth discussing a little bit about why they chose the words they did.

I like cheese.

frgsinwntr wrote:Yes I also agree with this. Though others, who I have on ignore, do not because it is a grey area its worth discussing a little bit about why they chose the words they did.

The thing is that this really is not a gray area since there is no room for interpretation. The rules do not support the any distinction in this matter so any attempt to create one would only be guessing.

This is kind of like saying that there is a difference between firing and shooting a weapon.

First off, I don't play competitively or in tournaments and have desire to do so. Also I should say that fluff and "how things would be" wins over law lawyering in my groups, so those that need quotes from a book for everything might do best as to ignore my entire post. As this is a gray area for sure, and like everything thats a "gray zone" there is no one true answer that works everywhere. That said...

The way we do it is that when an IC joins an unit, he is part of that unit. Thus any rules that give a benefit to the unit would affect IC as well. These rules are usually provided by wargear, a supernatural power they can control, or if its a special rule listing that it gets transferred to an IC. With some exceptions where these rules aren't provided by something you can just give out but instead from intense skills and training, you can't simply instantly give someone that.

A few examples...
An IC that joins a bunch of Plague Marines do not get the Feel No Pain they have since its a supernatural power they don't actually control and theres no special note of it spreading to ICs. But a Painboy's Feel No Pain comes from the Dok's Tool they carry around and have the skill to use. Since it affects his entire unit, it would work on those that join that unit. And what kind of Painboy would let the richest and biggest Orks fall right beside them, at least without take some teeth and maybe an arm or two. And the same thing with the Mad Dok, be it a more crazy style of fixing up the boyz.

However at the same time, we do not allow IC ambushing with Snikrot. Since to us, that ability comes from their intense skill and training and not from a special device. As escorting a large and loud warboss or Big Mek into ambushing is almost impossible, let alone if Grotsnik is the IC as he is completely mad and can't help but charge at anything he sees.

As for Waagh banners and Nobz, I never used them myself so I can't say for sure. I would think it only benefitted the mob itself (not including ICs), I don't see the leaders of a WAAAGH (or IC that really don't care) to need inspiration from banners.

I honestly can't really say anything about the other examples given as I never actually seen any of the other examples used nor do I really know how they work. Oddly enough Space Marines are in very short supply in my groups (We only have one Space Marine player and hes actually only plays the Space Wolves).

Sirouga,

Unfortunately if we followed fluff it would only take a single space marine to kill 1000 orks This wouldn't make for a very fun/balanced game now would it?

Also fluff wise a boss would not let a painboy help him since that would be too weedy... Remember orks are not like humans in this respect. If this works for your club and you guys find it fun I say go for it and keep playing this way. Just be aware that I personally feel you can't come to a tourny and expect to be able to use house rules.

arnaroe wrote:The thing is that this really is not a gray area since there is no room for interpretation. The rules do not support the any distinction in this matter so any attempt to create one would only be guessing.

I agree, since the rules define an IC that joins a unit as part of the unit any power or ability that effects them would be passed on. Thats why chaos icons and eldar exarch powers have to have an exception listed to prevent them to effecting things they aren't supposed to.

SirRouga wrote:However at the same time, we do not allow IC ambushing with Snikrot. Since to us, that ability comes from their intense skill and training and not from a special device. As escorting a large and loud warboss or Big Mek into ambushing is almost impossible, let alone if Grotsnik is the IC as he is completely mad and can't help but charge at anything he sees.

Thats fair enough as a house rule, but the difference is that no matter how you play it you need to acknowledge that it could be different from what the rules say. There are numerous house rules I use in my gaming group but if I'm asked a question then I'll stick with the real answer, if at the end of the day they want to discard the 'offical' line and make a house rule of their own thats their choice and is more than reasonable but no matter how many people do that its still not the answer to someone asking what the rule is.

Nevertheless I fully agree with your summary comparing the Plague Marines to the Dok's tools.

Gray area or not in the RAW, it's definitely gray in practice.

You'll have serious issues at a tournament if you're telling a Korsarro Khan fielding marine player that the squad he's joined won't be benefitting from Furious charge or Hit and run, because an IC doesn't confer his special rules onto a unit he joins.

Likewise you'll have serious issues at a tournament if you bring Snikrot, join Ghazkrull to him, and try to ambush on from your opponents table edge on turn 2.

Yes, they are worded pretty much the same; no, no one plays them the same.

Moz wrote:Likewise you'll have serious issues at a tournament if you bring Snikrot, join Ghazkrull to him, and try to ambush on from your opponents table edge on turn 2.

Bad sportsmanship yes, illeagal no. I don't see it as being any worse than double lash, or flying seer councils both of which seem to turn up often enough on the tournament scene. Back in the days of the old eldar codex people turned up to the UKGTs with silliness like 27 man strong seer councils...

Just because a rule is not liked does not mean its not legal. A tournament organiser could outlaw it, but then we're back to discussing house rules.

Yes, they are worded pretty much the same; no, no one plays them the same.

What you means is that you don't play them the same and neither does anyone you know. Slightly different to saying that 'no-one' plays that way.

Alright let me rephrase that, you will not go to a GW sponsored GT and find all of these issues ruled consistently.

Local flavors may vary.

So after reading through the three threads that all seem to be related to the subject of who and how spacial abilities are given I kept having the same situation come to mind. I'm at work and can't verify all of the separate rules at the moment, but the Eldar have a unit that can take an upgrade model and give that model an upgrade ability. I'm of course referring to the Guardian squad taking a warlock. I know that it's a psychic power and everyone will call out the differences but the wordings and the actual rules, unless I'm mistaken, are the same. A warlock never makes a psychic test and Embolden will always effect the "squad" that he is with. I'm merely wanting to point out that in the times that there is a question about a rule I've always thought that to take other rules as a show of precedence. In the Eldar FAQ it states that the Farseer joining the unit would of course receive a re-roll on leadership tests. The answer doesn't change the wording in a page entry, it doesn't state that from this day forth we messed up and it should be read as blah, it just kind of say "well yeah". This makes me believe that the way that the rules are worded meant to the developer of the rule that this was how it worked.

Again, if I'm wrong and missed a page that says all psychic powers effect everyone in a unit/squad/mob/gaggle "even an IC" than please point it out and I'll check when I get home. I just think that people are reading into the words and seeing different views of what the developers believed was plainly written.

I noticed the other thread get locked and I'm not trying to recreate the situation. It's just another example of how the really was expected to work that I never saw referenced.

Zero

Tournaments for the most part have and will continue to rule that an IC is a member of a unit and an ability that affects the unit such as a painboy will extend to the IC

Well Darkness, that settles it then.

Great evidence!

Oh wait...you made an unsupported statement pretending to be facts.


The BRB on pg. 48 makes it clear that any "unit abilities" must specifically state they apply to attached characters for them to do so.

When you purchase the Ork Painboy, for instance, what consists of "his unit."

Hint: It's easily determined by the FoC/unit list in the Ork Codex/Army Builder, etc. "his unit" = the painboy and his Nobz. Nothing else is part of "his unit" when you purchase him, and the rule doesn't say it applies to attached ICs, so it doesn't. Pg. 95 of the Ork Codex should settle that particular discussion. (See "Unit Composition")

The thing is Moz all those rules that ICs have do tend to specify that they confer to a squad, the only problem is when you join a second IC to them, or when you have the vague one's like grotsnik who because his rule doesn't say he benefits, would only give it to his squad.

Khan is a non issue though. it specifically says khan and models in his unit get the rules, which means khan and any non IC models he is attached to benefit from them.

If an IC has a special rule saying a unit they are attached to gets a special ability, that's enough to grant the ability to the unit, similarly, if a unit has a special rule that says an attached IC benefits it will pass it to them, but it MUST SPECIFY THIS.

nobody is saying the core rulebook is overriding these special rules, just that they need to be specific per the core rules.

As far as I can tell, the entirety of the issues you listed aren't at all an issue, the rules deal with them in a clear and well defined manner.

Trekari keep it civil please. Seriously, everyone's ego can survive this discussion.

Drunkspleen the issue here is that the same rule that prevents an IC from gaining the rules of a squad, also prevents squads from gaining the rules of an IC (these are literally in the same sentence).

Making the assumption that Khan 'and models in his unit' is the unit he has joined (but not any ICs that joined that unit) is just that, an assumption. It could just as easily mean Khan + unit + IC, or Khan alone.

The intent is probably closer to khan + unit or Khan + unit + IC, but the wording of these other issues is practically identical and we have less guidance on what the intent there is.

Civil? That was a ridiculous statement not supported by any facts about recent tournament rulings, and COMPLETELY un-supportable when making a 'factual' statement about how tournaments will "continue to rule."

Beyond that, how a 'tournament' rules on an issue is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). A tournament rule is nothing more than a house rule, which has no bearing or significance towards what the correct answer actually is.

As for the greater question in your thread, I believe "his unit" is clearly intended to represent only the unit that is listed in the back of each Codex unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

For instance, my Chapter Banner doesn't give an attached Interrogator-Chaplain +1A because it doesn't specifically say attached characters get it. (Dark Angels) In my case, the Standard Bearer giving "his unit" +1A is limited to the unit it was purchased under.

"Unit Composition" makes these questions ridiculously clear.

no, because it "specifies" that he passes to rule on to his squad, which means that the rule that ICs don't pass rules on to their units doesn't matter because that only applies when it's not specified otherwhise.

I don't see how you can argue that all these things fail to specify in the rule that they pass these abilities on to the unit. Every last one of them does.

The rule that prevents these abilities from passing between units and ICs provides an override for where rules specifically say they move from one to the other, all these abilities say they go to a squad, but not to an attached IC, so they work in one direction but not the other.

The reason I say that this is not gray area is that there are only two options:

1) All special abilities confer to an IC joining a unit (minus the ones in the BRB that specifically say they do not).

2) No special abilities confer to an IC joining a unit unless a specific permission is granted by the ability in question.

If phrases like "his unit" and "the unit he is with" are suppose to indicate in any way that there is an option number 3 (Some abilitys confer to an IC but not others) we need support from the rules. The only support we can find is on page 48 in the BRB and as you all know it says option number 2 is the correct one.

Moz wrote:Gray area or not in the RAW, it's definitely gray in practice.

You'll have serious issues at a tournament if you're telling a Korsarro Khan fielding marine player that the squad he's joined won't be benefitting from Furious charge or Hit and run, because an IC doesn't confer his special rules onto a unit he joins.

Likewise you'll have serious issues at a tournament if you bring Snikrot, join Ghazkrull to him, and try to ambush on from your opponents table edge on turn 2.

Yes, they are worded pretty much the same; no, no one plays them the same.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. An IC conferring an ability to his unit is not the same as an IC conferring his ability to another IC. Snikriot and Ghazkull ambushing is not only unsporting but illegal.

Moz wrote:Making the assumption that Khan 'and models in his unit' is the unit he has joined (but not any ICs that joined that unit) is just that, an assumption. It could just as easily mean Khan + unit + IC, or Khan alone.

Actually, this is an assumption based on the rules. "His unit" can only mean a unit he has joined since the IC has only two possible states, single or joined. The reference to "his unit" can therefor only mean a unit he has joined since the other option ("his unit" referring to him self) is obviously gibberish. When an IC joins Khan and his unit the rule on page 48 kicks in and asks if the ability in question is also conferred to ICs. I can not, however, see how the other interpretation is based on the rules since it violates the now famous rule on page 48.

When looking at this I think its best to disregard the fact that the source of the special rule is an IC. If the source is an piece of wargear (bosspole) or the unit it self (fearless) we can all agree that page 48 applies. So why should there be a difference if the source is an IC if there are no rules that imply one?

Drunkspleen wrote:no, because it "specifies" that he passes to rule on to his squad, which means that the rule that ICs don't pass rules on to their units doesn't matter because that only applies when it's not specified otherwhise.

I don't see how you can argue that all these things fail to specify in the rule that they pass these abilities on to the unit. Every last one of them does.

The rule that prevents these abilities from passing between units and ICs provides an override for where rules specifically say they move from one to the other, all these abilities say they go to a squad, but not to an attached IC, so they work in one direction but not the other.

It's really quite simple.

#1: You're wrong about it not mattering unless specified otherwise, see #2.
#2: BRB Pg. 48 says it must be SPECIFIC. Your example of "specific" is laughable, given that I can make a better argument for "his unit" by using the Codices themselves (again, see "Unit Composition" in the back).
#3: Example of SPECIFIC:

Dark Angel Codex, Pg. 37 wrote:Litanies of Hate: On a palyer turn in which he charges, a Chaplain or an Interrogator-Chaplain, and all members of any Dark Angel squad he has joined, leads, or is attached to may re-roll failed rolls to hit.

#4: Example of non-specific:

his unit

#5: Intent: A Painboy confers FNP to 'his unit.' Would anyone realistically argue that the intent here is for +30 points, you grant Ghazghkull (225 pt model w/ T5 and 4 wounds) FNP also, and another IC on top of that if they are attached? Does that seem proper? Beyond that, a Painboy allows models in "the Painboy's unit" to have Cybork body for +5 points. This is grammatically identical to saying "his unit," so would anyone argue that you can give an attached IC a Cybork Body upgrade?


I've shown two different reasons why this is a non-issue. Either "his unit" means the models covered under the "Unit Composition" entry in the back of the Codices such as Mad Dok Grotsnik= "1 (Unique)" and a Painboy's unit = "3-10 Nobz," or "his unit" is not specific enough, which is why this is argued about and therefore ALSO why it doesn't pass Pg. 48 of the BRB. Failing that, you then have the sniff test, where the entire idea gets thrown out the window after determining it smells like bs.

Trekari, I agree 100%, but let me try and reword your post so it is less offensive and less likely to turn into the Argument that I had in the last thread.

"It's really quite simple.

#1: You're not quite right about it not mattering unless specified otherwise, see #2.
#2: BRB Pg. 48 says it must be SPECIFIC. Your example of "specific" is not really corect, I can make a Solid argument for "his unit" by using the Codices themselves (again, see "Unit Composition" in the back).
#3: Example of SPECIFIC:

Dark Angel Codex, Pg. 37 wrote:
Litanies of Hate: On a palyer turn in which he charges, a Chaplain or an Interrogator-Chaplain, and all members of any Dark Angel squad he has joined, leads, or is attached to may re-roll failed rolls to hit.


#4: Example of non-specific:

his unit


#5: Intent: A Painboy confers FNP to 'his unit.' Would anyone realistically argue that the intent here is for +30 points, you grant Ghazghkull (225 pt model w/ T5 and 4 wounds) FNP also, and another IC on top of that if they are attached? Does that seem proper? Beyond that, a Painboy allows models in "the Painboy's unit" to have Cybork body for +5 points. This is grammatically identical to saying "his unit," so would anyone argue that you can give an attached IC a Cybork Body upgrade?


I've shown two different reasons why this is a non-issue. Either "his unit" means the models covered under the "Unit Composition" entry in the back of the Codices such as Mad Dok Grotsnik= "1 (Unique)" and a Painboy's unit = "3-10 Nobz," or "his unit" is not specific enough, which is why this is argued about and therefore ALSO why it doesn't pass Pg. 48 of the BRB. "

Froggy edit done : )

I like that every poster believes that it's "Quite simple, so obvious, and not a grey area at all" and then the next four posts are four different interpretations. You guys are the best.

Trekari your position is based on the belief that the term 'unit' is only conferred from the back of the codex. Whereas the IC rules clearly allow an IC to join and become part of the unit. Leadership pg 47 for instance tells you to 'remember to use the highest Ld in the unit', which will usually be the attached IC. Your belief may fit how you want the game to be played, but I don't see how it is any more valid than the other common interpretation.

Arnaroe, page 48 which you call out so frequently, in the same sentence that you are referencing even, states that the rules of the unit are not given to the IC and the rules of the IC are not given to the unit. Therefore in order for any of special rules from the ICs in the above examples to be conferred onto the joined unit, the rule must essentially be considered specific enough to apply to the unit as a whole (IC giving the rule and attached unit). At this point the situation is no different than the rest of the examples, which is why they are all connected logically.

From the intent argument #5, I would wager that a great deal of people would disagree with you on the intent of this rule.

This rule has been around since 4th edition. Same rule word-for-word.

Why does everyone think this is something new, and somehow everyone has missed this *new* rule?

For 5 years, this rule has exsited, GW staffers, rule makers, tournament organizers of all levels, tournament FAQs that were pages long, and even the people who wrote this rule play it the way it has always been played, and thats if something says it effects the entire unit (barring any rule not pertaining to ICs [i.e. chaos icons]) effects the attached IC too.

This includes the Ambush ability from snikrot. Beardy (yes) but you can do it. I would love to see this one FAQ'd out of existence though, as an ork player, I do not do this.

But, this *IS NOT* new. 5 years of this same rule. And now it is treated as *new* because of the new editon Easter Egg hunting.

Lets let it go.

Moz,

My position is not only based on grammar and the very basic definition of what constitutes "his unit" in the possessive sense, but also based on examples which set the precedent for what constitutes "specific."

1) Abilities must specifically say they apply to ICs and/or are given to members of units that IC's attach to. Nobody can dispute that the Litanies of Hate rule is specific enough to pass this test, whereas "his unit" is so obviously NOT specific enough (or we wouldn't be #*(#% arguing) that it shames me people believe otherwise. The BRB is unquestionably clear on this issue, and even goes so far as to cite a specific example (the Stubborn USR) in order to provide evidence of the type of wording required to meet the standard of applying one unit's abilitees to an attached IC or vice-versa.

2) Please, someone refute the "Painboy's unit" and "his unit" argument. They both refer to the exact same thing in the Ork Codex, so what (using what to me is so obviously a wrong interpretation) would stop someone from upgrading a character with Cybork Body for +5pts because they were 'attached' and thus (using the poor interpretation) are members of "the Painboy's unit?"

"Unit Composition" is not something that can be argued. The Codices clearly state exactly what you get with each UNIT that you purchase. A Nobz Unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be an upgrade character (Painboy). This unit has it's own wargear options and special abilities. Those options and abilities are unit-specific, and cannot possibly apply to ANY other unit in the army, unless they expressly, clearly, and SPECIFICALLY state otherwise.

They don't.

As for Snikrot and "ambush," no, you can't.

Trekari wrote:Moz,

My position is not only based on grammar and the very basic definition of what constitutes "his unit" in the possessive sense, but also based on examples which set the precedent for what constitutes "specific."

1) Abilities must specifically say they apply to ICs and/or are given to members of units that IC's attach to. Nobody can dispute that the Litanies of Hate rule is specific enough to pass this test, whereas "his unit" is so obviously NOT specific enough (or we wouldn't be #*(#% arguing) that it shames me people believe otherwise. The BRB is unquestionably clear on this issue, and even goes so far as to cite a specific example (the Stubborn USR) in order to provide evidence of the type of wording required to meet the standard of applying one unit's abilitees to an attached IC or vice-versa.

2) Please, someone refute the "Painboy's unit" and "his unit" argument. They both refer to the exact same thing in the Ork Codex, so what (using what to me is so obviously a wrong interpretation) would stop someone from upgrading a character with Cybork Body for +5pts because they were 'attached' and thus (using the poor interpretation) are members of "the Painboy's unit?"

"Unit Composition" is not something that can be argued. The Codices clearly state exactly what you get with each UNIT that you purchase. A Nobz Unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be an upgrade character (Painboy). This unit has it's own wargear options and special abilities. Those options and abilities are unit-specific, and cannot possibly apply to ANY other unit in the army, unless they expressly, clearly, and SPECIFICALLY state otherwise.

They don't.

As for Snikrot and "ambush," no, you can't.

So, why didn't you make this argument 8 months ago or so, back in 4th ed? The same rule, the same ork codex, all those tournaments. Also, "his unit' is not new either, or wording like "the unit he is with".

This again seems to be rule easter egg hunting gone array. Little you realize this rule has been around for a very long time.

Trekari wrote:Moz,

My position is not only based on grammar and the very basic definition of what constitutes "his unit" in the possessive sense, but also based on examples which set the precedent for what constitutes "specific."

1) Abilities must specifically say they apply to ICs and/or are given to members of units that IC's attach to. Nobody can dispute that the Litanies of Hate rule is specific enough to pass this test, whereas "his unit" is so obviously NOT specific enough (or we wouldn't be #*(#% arguing) that it shames me people believe otherwise. The BRB is unquestionably clear on this issue, and even goes so far as to cite a specific example (the Stubborn USR) in order to provide evidence of the type of wording required to meet the standard of applying one unit's abilitees to an attached IC or vice-versa.

2) Please, someone refute the "Painboy's unit" and "his unit" argument. They both refer to the exact same thing in the Ork Codex, so what (using what to me is so obviously a wrong interpretation) would stop someone from upgrading a character with Cybork Body for +5pts because they were 'attached' and thus (using the poor interpretation) are members of "the Painboy's unit?"

"Unit Composition" is not something that can be argued. The Codices clearly state exactly what you get with each UNIT that you purchase. A Nobz Unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be an upgrade character (Painboy). This unit has it's own wargear options and special abilities. Those options and abilities are unit-specific, and cannot possibly apply to ANY other unit in the army, unless they expressly, clearly, and SPECIFICALLY state otherwise.

They don't.

As for Snikrot and "ambush," no, you can't.

If I could "bottle" this and send it to john spencer I would

can you qoute for me, since I am at work, the unit composition rules in codex since i don't have it here?

I have the luxury of only knowing 5th Ed. rules. While you might consider that a drawback, bear in mind that means I don't have bias towards older rulings, and I don't have memory issues about how something is supposed to work by confusing 5th ed. rules with prior editions.

Saying that "his unit" isn't new does absolutely nothing to refute my argument. Saying the rule has been around 'forever' also does NOTHING for winning the argument. You need evidence and logic to support your position, of which you've offered neither.

Here's a homework assignment for you: Get back to me with all the USR's in the BRB that meet the criteria on BRB pg. 48 for specifically being granted to attached ICs, or for IC's granting it to units with whom they attach to.

(There are 3 of them)