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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



Boss Snikrot's 'Ambush' special rule says (Ork codex, pg62):

"If the owning player chooses, Snikrot and his unit may be held in Reserve. When Snikfrot and his unit become available from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge."


The Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units: Special Rules (rulebook, pg48) 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."




QUESTION: If another independent Character (including other special characters like Ghazghkull or ICs mounted on a bike) is joined to a unit containing Snikrot, do they benefit from the Ambush special rule?




OPTION A. Yes, any IC can join the unit in reserve and then arrive on the table using the 'Ambush' special rule.



OPTION B. No, since the 'Ambush' special rule does not specify that it applies to the joined IC it does not. Therefore if the IC is joined to the unit it will not be able to arrive via 'Ambush'.



OPTION C. No. While I think that the joined IC technically benefits from 'Ambush' I either feel the rule is obscenely overpowered or was an oversight by the designers and either way I don't play that way.



OPTION D. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

Option C - it's an oversight by the designers (and also potentially obscenely powerful). This might have to do with the change from 4th to 5th edition rules. Ambush was made for 4th edition where Reserves was a special thing in itself and you couldn't automatically join ICs to units in reserve. IIRC it was only a late rulebook FAQ that allowed you to join them while in reserves - if they arrived on the same turn.

A. Any number of ICs can join the unit with Snikrot. When they arrive, Snikrot's Ambush ability applies to the entire unit.

I have run this though my head a few times on how I think that it applies after reading the rules in question for "other" threads.

I chose D for only one reason. I think that there is a loophole in the way the wording is put. I've never used Snikrot in a game, in fact I haven't had a chance to field the Orks I'm putting together at all. I have played a number of games against Orks and if the opponent were to use the Kommando unit I'd ask them how they were using it.
As I read the rules and in what seems legal as the rules are written I could hold the kommando unit, including Snikrot, in reserves. I can also attach an IC to that unit. But the Ambush ability does not get applied to the IC. Then again it does not say that the kommando unit loses it either.

So the loophole situation, I've attached my IC while the kommandos are in reserve. I roll one time for the whole unit. They become availible. Now since the kommando unit is able to come in from any board edge, they enter from the enemy long edge. But the attached IC cannot follow them since he doesn't benefit from Ambush so he must enter from my board edge. One roll, both units, but the IC has to move out of the kommando unit during the move entering play.

I don't know how much of a loophole this would be since you're limiting the number of chances for each unit to enter play by relying on one roll.

I'm not sure but this right but this is the logical progression as I see it.

Zero

Hero,

Pg. 94 gives some insight on this.

Since you have to make each model's move as if they were positioned "just off the board" in the previous turn, as if they had "moved as normal," and measure from there, then the IC would in no way have the movement to go from the "Ambush" table edge to his normal deployment area, because they would have been required to keep coherency while positioned off the board since that is part of normal movement.

Since they cannot arrive 'together' while using Ambush, I believe you'd have to keep and roll for the IC separately.

Trekari,

That would be the assumption, but that is not how the rules are written. The deployment of the unit happens after the roll. The Arriving from Reserve section states that the units must enter from your board edge. Then it states that you may come from a different place, if deepstriking or outflanking. Regrettably this is still the movement phase and an IC can leave a unit during this time. Thus the loophole to bring all on with one roll. It seems weird but that is how it reads.

Zero

Let me put it this way.

The entire unit is positioned "just off the board" as if they had moved as normal.

Normal movement.

That requires coherency.

So how are you placing the IC and Snikrot's unit "just off the board" while maintaining coherency, and yet moving them on from completely different table edges?

My argument is all about game balance. Snikrot is instead of a pk nob, so letting him infiltrate a warboss is just unbalancing. Without the PK, with 2 burnas, the unit is scary but manageable. With a warboss it's just too much.

Trekari, Correct the unit is placed just off the table, at my board edge. Because they do not have infiltrate or scout. They lost that when I attached any of the other Ork IC's. Then as they are to move onto the table I realize that Snikrot and his kommandos are "masters or guerilla tactics" And move them from the enemy's table edge. They do not lose Ambush because that Special Rule does not say they do and it does not have an * next to it. The IC then moves on to the table where he was positioned just off of it.

Again, that is the progression of the way the rules are read. I'd also like to point out that your reference is taken somewhat out of context since the line you quoted is a qualifier for the lines after it, which are trying to give direction for the proper movement onto the table.

Zero

No, they would have been placed just off the board on the enemy's table edge in order to Ambush.

When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the
table from the controlling player’s own table edge
(unless it’s deep striking or outflanking). Each model’s
move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if
they had been positioned just off the board in the
previous turn and moved as normal.

Models move onto the table as described for other reserves, above.

The unit +IC cannot be placed just off the table edge as if they had been there last turn because that would NOT be in coherency by a distance of about 46" or so, minimum.

Trekari,

This is an example of how you move them on the table, "As If" that was where they were. Now I'm reading the rule for Ambush and it says they may enter play from any board edge, "as if" that was where they started.

Placed them next to my board edge as the rule for reserves state. Then apply Ambush.

I didn't say that the wording made sense. But that is the way it's written. The verbiage should have included the word "outflank". This would be much less of an issue if they had.

Zero

In the previous turn, could they have been positioned off the board as you claim and still been in coherency with the IC, who would not have been given the chance to move away yet?

In the previous turn if they were off the board they would be counted as casulties. Per the rule on page 45. To my knowledge there is no other way to move off the table edge. Which is why I say that you are referencing an example of the easiest way to explain how to move a model onto the table. Not a real rule that says they have to start from a specific location.

I think this is going way off the original topic and I will not muck up a poll any longer.

Zero

yakface wrote:the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character

This seems like a particularly helpful sentence.

'B'

you'd think so shep... but the wording in the rule is almost identicle to the FNP debate... and people are arguing the otherway for the FNP debate...

Makes no sense to me :(

I voted B.... The BBB says the rule must specidically state that a special rule of a unit applies to an IC. Snikrot's rule does not mention IC's.... So, it doesn't apply.

ender502

ender502 wrote:I voted B.... The BBB says the rule must specidically state that a special rule of a unit applies to an IC. Snikrot's rule does not mention IC's.... So, it doesn't apply.

ender502

no it doesn't, it says that "unless specified in the rule itself..." no "to an IC" anywhere in it.

In fact, going by that hard line reading the only special rules that would apply to any IC is fearless and stubborn, because nearly every other rule in every other codex does not even mention ICs in them, including both rules for Chaplains.

I honestly don't do this, and recommend not doing it, but I think it is possible RAW wise (in my reading), beardy yes, and I think it was an oversight of GW to allow it to work with ICs. Or at the very least, GW made it ambiguous enough to be read that it is possible, hence the poll.

yakface wrote:
The Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units: Special Rules (rulebook, pg48) 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."

padixon wrote:
In fact, going by that hard line reading the only special rules that would apply to any IC is fearless and stubborn, because nearly every other rule in every other codex does not even mention ICs in them, including both rules for Chaplains.

Uhhhh...Yep. It's not a hardline. It's the rule plain and simple. If the rule does not mention transference to an IC joined to the squad it does not go to the IC joined to the squad. Very simple.

padixon wrote:
I honestly don't do this, and recommend not doing it, but I think it is possible RAW wise (in my reading), beardy yes, and I think it was an oversight of GW to allow it to work with ICs. Or at the very least, GW made it ambiguous enough to be read that it is possible, hence the poll.

That people argue the issue does not make it ambigous at all. I can argue any question of whether or not to give a vehicle an obscured save ...that doesn't mean it deserves one or if there is any actual question. I can just be arguing to gain advantage.

Well, I was going to write a treatise on this but.... I don't care enough. The way i play it is a s follows....ALL special rules (including unit special rules as I think they are special rules just like USR) are limited in their ability to transfer to IC by p.48. Wargear is not a special rule and is treated differently UNLESS it grants a special rule....like FNP or infiltrate.

ender502

That people argue the issue does not make it ambigous at all. I can argue any question of whether or not to give a vehicle an obscured save ...that doesn't mean it deserves one or if there is any actual question. I can just be arguing to gain advantage.

uhhh..yes it does

ambiguous

1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.

See, it sure does, Look even the GW resident rules e-mail guy ruled in favor of a rule with the same line "his unit" for Dok's tools as it is in Snikrot's Ambush rule. Hence the poll, hence the ambiguity of the rule.

Dok's Tools and this one both use the same line "his unit" so, with the poll on Dok's unit and the majority that play it giving to an IC, that means there *must* be some ambiguity with this. To suggest anything otherwise would say you think other people can not read, or are just plain stupid. And I don't think you mean that at all

Sorry to be off topic, I had to snip this one in the proverbial butt.

Also, you didn't quote the other part I said

no it doesn't, it says that "unless specified in the rule itself..." no "to an IC" anywhere in it.

There you go.

The sentence clearly only says "unless specified in the rule itself..." so, there is ambiguity in this as well, you believe this says (even without saying it btw) that it must say the words "Independent Character" in the rule. Others (myself included) believe this means any rule that applies to other units also applies to ICs because ICs are units...

So, if a Special rule works for other "units" besides the unit it is with, then we use math A=B, B=C, therefore A=C
So, if a Special rule works for other "ICs" besides the unit it is with...see how that works

Anyways, just pointing out the ambiguity of it all, as we all have different interpretations of the same rule as per the definition of ambiguity.

padixon wrote:

There you go.

The sentence clearly only says "unless specified in the rule itself..." so, there is ambiguity in this as well, you believe this says (even without saying it btw) that it must say the words "Independent Character" in the rule. Others (myself included) believe this means any rule that applies to other units also applies to ICs because ICs are units...

Padixon...first let me say that I appreciate the explanation of your POV. I think you explained it very well and really gave a language to the argument/debate. That being said I don't agree. Though IC are "units" in their own right, they are also "IC." One does not negate the other and so these "units" are limited by the fact they are "IC" as well.

ender502

The ability will transfer due to the wording of the ability "his unit" the IC becomes part of the unit in reserve and gains the special ability.

Yep, because the wording so closely follows the example the rulebook gave about being specific.

Sorry, but no. Ambush says absolutely nothing about independent characters gaining the ability.

Clay Williams wrote:The ability will transfer due to the wording of the ability "his unit" the IC becomes part of the unit in reserve and gains the special ability.

Wrong. When the IC "joins" the unit, the restrictions for an IC joining a unit on p.48 apply. Before he is a part of the unit he is an IC and there are restrictions on IC's joining a unit.

ender502

P.48 applies but is overridden by the codex wording of the rule.

I do agree that the rule is blatantly powerful and is in need of closer investigation as to if it should be changed (FAQd).

I'll need to consult the rulebook, but I do believe that an Independant Character CANNOT join a unit in reserve. They can of course, mission permitting, be held in reserve.

Ergo, if my thinking is correct (like I said need to check the rulebook) then he cannot infiltrate with Snikrot, as Snikrots unit is in reserve. As the character does not have infiltrate, they cannot join the unit when it deploys, regardless.

pp. 94 Reserves
An IC may join a unit in reserves, it is stated during the deployment of your force.

I agree MDG, an IC joined to a unit of Kommandos with Snikrot may not infiltrate. However an IC joined to this same unit may make use of the ambush rule.

There are two separate rules for this, I believe you are confusing infiltrate and ambush.

Hey zeebah neighbor!! Like the new profile pic.

And respectfully disagree about the ambush rule. phhhbbbttttt..........

Haha, well thanks!

I know, but you can't make everyone happy.

I just searched this out because it is still relevant and unanswered and it came up in a discussion over in tactics just now.

1. An IC does not benefit from special rules conferred by a unit unless otherwise specified.

2. Ambush is not being conferred by a unit to the IC; the previous rule is irrelevant. Instead, it is being conferred to the unit by a special character.

3. When the IC joins the unit he becomes part of the unit. He doesn't gain the unit's ability to infiltrate, but Snikrot does confer to him the special rule "Ambush" because he's part of the unit.

I voted "A" and was going to write it all out but looks like Dash made the exact same point I was going to.