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.

Among the controversial rulings made in the INAT FAQ one of the more contentious is RB.48B.02; independent characters (IC) and unit special rules. In an effort to apply the rule on page 48 of the main rulebook (48rb) the FAQ Council has made a distinction between special rules and USRs conferred by models and those conferred by wargear and psychic abilities; I contend that this is a distinction without merit, and that the injunction that special rules do not apply to attached ICs is to be interpreted broadly, thus allowing all methods of conferring special rules to be adjudicated using the same methodology.

To support this proposition I will provide examples from Codices that have GW FAQs, in order to present the view of the matter maintained by GW, and compare the language used in various Codices.

Before I present evidence in support of this proposition it is first necessary to establish that we can compare the text of pre-Fifth edition Codices and Fifth edition Codices; in order to do this we need only compare the Fourth edition version of 48rb;

Fourth Edition Rule Book page 50 wrote:
When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (like 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.

In some cases though, the character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining the unit. For example, if a character that does not have the Infiltrate special rule joins a unit of Infiltrators, the unit loses the Infiltrate rule. Such exceptions are addressed case by case in the Universal Special Rules section on page 74.

Fifth Edition Rule Book page 48 wrote:
When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (like 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining the unit. For example, if an independent character without the “infiltrate” special rule joins a unit of infiltrators, the unit cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules section for more details).

As we can see, the first paragraph of the Fourth edition rule and the first portion of the Fifth edition rule (bolded in both cases) are word-for-word identical. The remainder of the rule is differs in a manner without consequence to the function or writing of the rules at issue (“Infiltrators” becomes “infiltrators” for instance, or “the unit loses the Infiltrate rule” becomes “the unit cannot infiltrate”).

Having established that the 4th and 5th edition rules are essentially the same, let us examine perhaps the best evidence of how GW intends for us to interpret the rule, the (4th edition) Eldar Codex and the (5th edition) Eldar Codex FAQ. The Eldar Codex contains three types of unit special rules: special rules granted by persistent psychic powers (warlock powers and Veil of Tears), special rules granted by upgrade characters (Exarch powers) and temporary special rules granted by active psychic powers (Farseer powers Guide and Fortune).

Persistent psychic powers clearly are intended to apply to an attached IC;

Embolden, page 28 wrote:
The Warlock instills an unshakeable[sic] courage in his comrades, reaching into their minds with visions of mighty heroes and great victories. The Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Leadership tests.

Eldar FAQ, 3rd page, final question wrote:Q. If a Farseer joins a unit that includes a Warlock with the Embolden power, does he get to re-roll failed Psychic tests?

A. Yes – the presence of the Warlock obviously helps the Farseer to concentrate.

Special rules granted by upgrade characters (Exarchs) are clearly intended to apply to an attached IC;

Skyleap, page 35 wrote:Skyleap: With a great shout, the Exarch and his squad launch high into the sky. The player may elect to remove a unit with Skyleap from the table in its movement phase, placing it in reserve. If the squad was engaged in combat, the enemy may make a consolidation move....

Eldar FAQ, first page, final question wrote:Q. Can a unit of Swooping Hawks use Skyleap if the unit contains an Autarch without wings?

A. The unit may only utilize Skyleap if the Autarch has wings. The Autarch must then remain with the unit and deep strike together with them (i.e. it cannot separate from the unit when it is placed back into reserve).

Further supporting the notion that Exarch powers are intended to affect an attached IC is the following negative evidence;

Shadowstrike, page 33 wrote:Shadowstrike: The Exarch becomes one with the shadows, using them to shield his squad from their enemies as they approach. A squad including a model with Shadowstrike has the Infiltrate special rule. This ability cannot affect an Autarch – his command is needed elsewhere.

The relevant rule for ICs in both 4th and 5th editions specifically uses Infiltrate as a rule that is lost by a squad when joined by an IC without it; the only reason to include the above explicit disqualifier is that the Codex author considered the language used (“A squad including a model with Shadowstrike has the Infiltrate special rule”) sufficient to satisfy the 48rb rule.

Active psychic powers are not germane to this discussion.

Additional support of this type can be found in the Chaos Space Marine Codex;

Icons of Chaos, page 81 wrote:
Icon of Chaos Glory
The unit may re-roll failed Morale checks.

Icon of Khorne
All models in the unit, except Independent Characters joining the unit, have the Mark of Khorne.

[the Marks of Nurgle, Slaanesh and Tzeentch reiterate this wording]

Again, the explicit disqualification of ICs from the effect of Icons of Chaos is nonsensical except in the light that the Codex authors considered the wording “All models in the unit” to be sufficient, without the disqualifier, to apply the special rule to an attached IC.

We now have exhausted the Codices that have GW FAQs; appplying the above to the more recent Ork and Space Marine Codices, however, we see that the authors have maintained their use of lose wording.

For example, consider the Dok's Tools wargear;

Dok's Tools, page 38 wrote:Dok's Tools: A Painboy is an expert at repairing the sturdy Ork physique using a variety of mean-looking tools. He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit.

Does this apply to an attached IC? Compare the wording “(h)e confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit”, to the wording of the Eldar Warlock power Embolden, “(t)he Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Leadership tests” or Skyleap, “the Exarch and his squad launch high into the sky.”

Consider also the Narthecium in the Space Marine Codex;

Narthecium, page55 wrote:Narthecium: As long as the Apothecary is alive, all models in his squad have the feel no pain universal special rule.”

As I have shown, the terminology “his unit” or “his squad” has been used by Codex authors as sufficient to satisfy 48rb; the Eldar Codex provides both positive and negative evidence in light of this conclusion and the Chaos Space Marine Codex provides negative evidence. We further see that the Ork Codex has been written with the same terminology

While I am cognizant of the fact that 48rb would appear to demand substantial specificity, as I have shown above, the Codex authors have been laboring under these strictures for two editions of the rules now, and have repeatedly used far looser terminology to indicate special rules that apply to attached ICs. Further, while 48rb indicates a desire for specificity, the evidence of several years now shows that in practice they write their rules according to a far looser understanding of their own rules.

Update
A point brought up in this thread and by Yakface is that there is a special rule in the Eldar Codex (the Exarch Powers rule) that specifically includes Autarchs. I believe this rule is not as simple as it would initially appear; the relevant rule is on page 21 and serves to exclude Farseers, rather then to include Autarchs in such a way as to satisfy 48rb.

Exarch Powers: Aspect warrior entries also include details of supernatural abilities available to their Exarchs at the points cost in the army list.

Note that the Exarch powers can only ever affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs in the same squad as the Exarch using them. If an Exarch is removed from play then his abilities are lost.

Note the negative phrasing of the rule; powers "can only ever affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs". While this may be interpreted to be a specific inclusion of Autarchs, it actually supports the previously proffered rational: the Exarch powers are written in such a fashion that they, as written, satisfy 48rb, and thus it is necessary to exclude Farseers from their effects. Put more simply, the Exarch Powers rule excludes Farseers, because the authors believed otherwise all ICs would be affected. However, arguing over this distracts from the main point, so I won't belabor the point.

The salient point remains: there is no distinction made between the wording required for special rules granted by persistent psychic powers and characters in terms of application to an attached IC; if that is so, then the following can be deduced:

-The wording of persistent psychic powers as quoted above sets the standard for powers that are gained by an attached IC, as we know that these powers apply to an attached IC (see Eldar FAQ and Embolden),

-As demonstrated above, the wording of the Embolden power ("his unit") is sufficient to satisfy 48rb,

-This wording ("his unit") is fundamentally similar or identical to language used in the CSM, SM and Ork Codices for unit wide special rules.

The problem with this argument is a very simple one.
What was gospel in one edition has no standing in the current one.
A well thought out debate but seriously flawed from the start.

SeattleDV8 wrote:The problem with this argument is a very simple one.
What was gospel in one edition has no standing in the current one.
A well thought out debate but seriously flawed from the start.

But the FAQs are all written for 5th edition and support the notion that this wording is sufficient, and he demonstrated the similarity in the application of this rule that prevents the crossover of abilities between editions so as to explain why a codex written for 4th edition should be no different from one written for 5th edition in terms of this rule.

I think that really there is very little reliance on cross edition work, and codices exist outside of that anyway, The Eldar Codex is still a relevant 5th edition codex, which was written when the rule in question already existed, almost word for word.

SeattleDV8 wrote:The problem with this argument is a very simple one.
What was gospel in one edition has no standing in the current one.
A well thought out debate but seriously flawed from the start.

Dude, did you miss his entire first part of his post: The rule is Word-for-Word from 4th to 5th. Cut and paste.

So yes, what was gospel in the previous edition (because the wording is *identical*) is gospel in this one

I have been saying this for a month since this was brought up.

Why some people continue to believe that this *new? 5th edition* rule has somehow changed how we as players and as GW employees been playing for 5 years is beyond my scope to explain.


Edit: Also, the INAT FAQ's ruling on it is the most absurd ruling I have ever seen. Talk about taking the middle ground. IMHO I believe they (the ruling council?) voted this way because of 1 rule that they think is too powerful if it was left the same way we played in 4th ed. And that is Snikrot's ambush rule. They believe that it is way too powerful to be able to give it to a (for example) warboss on a bike (and for good reason I might add). Instead, they just should of looked at that one rule they have a problem with and FAQ'd it to not include ICs. With the current ruling they in essence say a chaplain's special rules that we have been playing with for over half a decade is wrong, and that no IC should benefit from it; just because it is a 'special rule' and not a 'wargear'. Simply absurd.

Buzzsaw and Padixon have the right of it. This attempt to limit Snikrot and arguably a Painboy's ability to allow bonuses to a tricked out Ork IC opens up huge buckets of worms when it comes to any IC in any codex joining units where it's always been played that the bonuses are universal for the unit. There is no justification for this ruling.

I haven't really decided where I stand on this issue, but I think there are a couple problems with some of your examples.

All of the examples you used from the eldar book regarding Exarch powers cannot be applied to a general rule. The eldar book has a rule specifically allowing exarch powers to apply to autarch and disallowing them for farseers (I don't have my book handy, so I can't give the exact details or page number). Given that there is a special rule for eldar, you cannot infer a general intent based on the wording of any Exarch power as they are all internally consistent with their IC rules.

I do however agree with you that they very clearly do intend for persistant psychic powers to effect Independent Characters.

As for the chaos examples, I think they are a valid supplement to more evidence, but taken on their own, they don't amount to much. It is not uncommon to include redundant information in a specific rule to avoid confusion.

None of this is to say that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect, I don't think there is anything to contradict it, I just don't think your evidence contradicts the alternative interpretation.

Buzzsaw wrote:
For example, consider the Dok's Tools wargear;
[Dok's Tools, page 38]Dok's Tools: A Painboy is an expert at repairing the sturdy Ork physique using a variety of mean-looking tools. He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit.
Does this apply to an attached IC? Compare the wording “(h)e confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit”, to the wording of the Eldar Warlock power Embolden, “(t)he Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Leadership tests” or Skyleap, “the Exarch and his squad launch high into the sky.”

The wording is similar. Clearly the authors intended FNP to apply to attached ICs.

Note: original post edited to correct typographical errors and updated to contain the following information.

A point brought up in this thread and by Yakface is that there is a special rule in the Eldar Codex (the Exarch Powers rule) that specifically includes Autarchs. I believe this rule is not as simple as it would initially appear; the relevant rule is on page 21 and serves to exclude Farseers, rather then to include Autarchs in such a way as to satisfy 48rb.

Exarch Powers: Aspect warrior entries also include details of supernatural abilities available to their Exarchs at the points cost in the army list.

Note that the Exarch powers can only ever affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs in the same squad as the Exarch using them. If an Exarch is removed from play then his abilities are lost.

Note the negative phrasing of the rule; powers "can only ever affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs". While this may be interpreted to be a specific inclusion of Autarchs, it actually supports the previously proffered rational: the Exarch powers are written in such a fashion that they, as written, satisfy 48rb, and thus it is necessary to exclude Farseers from their effects. Put more simply, the Exarch Powers rule excludes Farseers, because the authors believed otherwise all ICs would be affected. However, arguing over this distracts from the main point, so I won't belabor the point.

The salient point remains: there is no distinction made between the wording required for special rules granted by persistent psychic powers and characters in terms of application to an attached IC; if that is so, then the following can be deduced:

-The wording of persistent psychic powers as quoted above sets the standard for powers that are gained by an attached IC, as we know that these powers apply to an attached IC (see Eldar FAQ and Embolden),

-As demonstrated above, the wording of the Embolden power ("his unit") is sufficient to satisfy 48rb,

-This wording ("his unit") is fundamentally similar or identical to language used in the CSM, SM and Ork Codices for unit wide special rules.

It's interesting that nobody favoring the opposing viewpoint seems willing to refute your well thought out assertions.

The INAT FAQ's goal is to eliminate contention and provide a standard interpretation. If you don't make this distinction between PPP and USRs clear, then you end up with enormous debates with no clear answer. There must have been fifty pages and 3 or 4 locked threads on whether a painboy gave FNP to an IC joining his unit or not, all focused around whether FNP was a unit USR or a wargear granted rule.

You may feel the wording is sufficient, but a strict reading of what rules are allowed to transfer to IC joining units will show a very narrow interpretation is possible.

All of your examples for this are provided by wargear or psychic powers, with the exception of the 'Shadowstrike' ability which explicitly states it applies to certain IC only.
Although very pretty, and very well phrased, this isn't an especially compelling argument.

How would you convince someone to interpret the p48 restriction broadly, as you do, if they wanted to play it narrowly, and argued RAW? I don't think anything short of a FAQ or a distinction between USRs and wargear would be sufficient to eliminate RAW disputes on the matter.

Gitzbitah wrote:The INAT FAQ's goal is to eliminate contention and provide a standard interpretation. If you don't make this distinction between PPP and USRs clear, then you end up with enormous debates with no clear answer. There must have been fifty pages and 3 or 4 locked threads on whether a painboy gave FNP to an IC joining his unit or not, all focused around whether FNP was a unit USR or a wargear granted rule.

You may feel the wording is sufficient, but a strict reading of what rules are allowed to transfer to IC joining units will show a very narrow interpretation is possible.

All of your examples for this are provided by wargear or psychic powers, with the exception of the 'Shadowstrike' ability which explicitly states it applies to certain IC only.
Although very pretty, and very well phrased, this isn't an especially compelling argument.

How would you convince someone to interpret the p48 restriction broadly, as you do, if they wanted to play it narrowly, and argued RAW? I don't think anything short of a FAQ or a distinction between USRs and wargear would be sufficient to eliminate RAW disputes on the matter.

What you say is very well and true, but it doesn't strike at the root of the problem, nor does the INAT FAQ on the subject. In fact it skirts around it and seeks a middle ground. Which as we can all agree when there are rules where there is only a right or a wrong way to play; then there is no room for a 'middle' ground.

What I mean is hypothetically speaking lets say you have a wargear (a) and a special rule (b). They may be form the same codex or different, it does not matter. Lets say both the wargear (a) and the special rule (b) have the *exact* same wording on how it affects the unit (i.e. "his unit"). In the spirit of the rules and the game, how are these two 'abilities' different in gaming terms?

Simply, they are not, and only are different in semantics. One being classified as a "special rule" and the other "wargear", yet both function the exact same way in the game, and offer the exact same benefits to the unit. The INAT FAQ would have us believe that ICs may not accept any unit's special rule, but sure as heck will accept the ability provided by its wargear, even when the result is the exact same?

IMO, the ruling by the INAT FAQ is simply absurd. They answered the player base (actually 1 guy who brought this up), with a very strict reading on page 48. And that is by claiming RAW. And by RAW, since the wording on page 48. only say "special rules", then therefore anything that is not a "special rule" has no bearing on this rule.

Do they (ruling council?) honestly believe that this ruling is 1) in the spirit of the game/rule and 2) is what the original writers of this rule (back in 4th ed mind you) had in mind?

Fact is we (and GW employees, GTs, RTTs, Ard boys, and every other official and non-official tournament and FAQ) have been playing this rule to allow a loose generalization of the unit it covers (i.e "his unit" and "his squad" and "the members of his squad") to also include ICs in the same unit. The best example I can think of is the Chaplain. Everyone has always played that the Chaplain's "special rules" also affected ICs, and has been this way for over half a decade in tournaments and in official battle reports. And now all of a sudden, there is an issue? And that we (along with all those other GW employees, GTs, etc...) have been playing this wrong for all these years?

The real way to explain the wording on page 48 is that it applies to a unit's special rules that do not explicitly state they work with any other units (i.e. Plague Marines FNP or Deff Kopter's Hit n Run). Not that it 'has' to say the words "including ICs" in the rule. In fact, the rule on page 48 says nothing of the sort. Simply that the special rule in question must "specify in the rule itself" to work with ICs [Note: the only part in this sentence that is from the rulebook is the quoted portion, and has no mention of the words ICs]. And what Buzzsaw is saying is that the words "his unit" does "specify in the rule itself" as it has done since the beginning of many 40k player's careers; well...up until they decide to play in a tournament that would utilize the INAT FAQ.

Again I implore that the ruling in the INAT FAQ on this subject is wrong and not ruled in a manner that is consistent with how GW writes rules. GW wrote this rule to either keep ICs from gaining 'any' special rule (generally speaking to include all abilities and wargear) or they wrote it so that ICs can gain a units special rule (generally speaking to include all abilities and wargear) as long as the rule implies that it works for all those in the unit ("his unit" for example) and not with the unit's special rule that is made for its individual members (Plague Marine FNP for example).

Again ruling that it only works or doesn't work because the 'ability' is written under the wargear heading or the special rule heading is simply absurd.

Edited for some grammar corrections and stuff.

It seems to me that the INAT entries for some of these points are closer to "rules as intended" as opposed to "clarifications."

Painboy conferring FNP to a warboss. Of course that makes sense.

Warboss on a bike infiltrating with Snikrot. No, that makes no fething sense.

That being said I agree with all of them.