Hey guys, can we check some rules by raw? I was reading the special character rules and it says that an IC that joins a unit does not benefit from any special rules. I then read the Pain boy entry and found that he "confers the feel no pain ability to his unit" a couple questions here.

1) Is feel no pain a special rule or an ability? (how is ability defined in the rules?)
2) Since the boss is an independent character that joins the unit, does he also gain this?

I'll be interested to see which way this goes, personally I feel that he should get FNP as should a space marine attached to a command squad with apothecary.

But I recall that when a similar situation came up recently, Yakface and others postulated that it required for the rule to specifically state "and attached characters" per the rule which says ICs don't get the unit's special abilities "unless specified in the rule itself" (page 48, BRB)

I fully concur that an IC joined to an Ork unit with a Painboy does not benefit from Feel No Pain. The rules are quite clear on this matter, but I have a feeling that many people don't know or disregard this rule.

Drunkspleen wrote:I'll be interested to see which way this goes, personally I feel that he should get FNP as should a space marine attached to a command squad with apothecary.

But I recall that when a similar situation came up recently, Yakface and others postulated that it required for the rule to specifically state "and attached characters" per the rule which says ICs don't get the unit's special abilities "unless specified in the rule itself" (page 48, BRB)

So the Painboy's FNP does confer to the Warboss because it "specifies in the rule itself" that FNP from the dok's tools is granted to the painboy's unit. Mind you, Mad Doc Grotsnik also has Dok's Tools, the exact same wargear as a Painboy, and clearly Mad Doc's FNP is meant to affect more than just himself? Yakface, would you agree with that?

olympia wrote:
So the Painboy's FNP does confer to the Warboss because it "specifies in the rule itself" that FNP from the dok's tools is granted to the painboy's unit. Mind you, Mad Doc Grotsnik also has Dok's Tools, the exact same wargear as a Painboy, and clearly Mad Doc's FNP is meant to affect more than just himself? Yakface, would you agree with that?

Nope, you've got it backwards. Read page 48 of the rulebook under "special rules". An IC who joins a unit does not confer the rule upon the unit, and vice-versa unless the rule specifies otherwise.

In the case of Mad Dok Grotsnik, the ability most certainly specifies that it is conferred the unit (so it is) but nothing speciifes that Grotsnik himself (or any other IC that joins the unit) benefits from the special rule so he does not.

That'll be another GW oversight then.

I agree RAW suggests that Apothecaries and Painboys won't lift a finger to save their dying commanders, but was this the intention?

Well I guess that it's down to individual players on how to interpret it. For friendly games, my Painboy most certainly will have the painkillers at the ready if my Warboss get's hit by a Krak Missile.

Flashman wrote:That'll be another GW oversight then.

I agree RAW suggests that Apothecaries and Painboys won't lift a finger to save their dying commanders, but was this the intention?

Well I guess that it's down to individual players on how to interpret it. For friendly games, my Painboy most certainly will have the painkillers at the ready if my Warboss get's hit by a Krak Missile.

You can if you like but you really should be informing your opponent of what you're doing.

The rule is pretty clearly put in place to stop ICs (who tend to be pretty uber-dudes with plenty of armor saves, invulnerable saves, and other special rules to protect themselves) from gaining the abilities of units just by joining them (and vice-versa).

So while it may not make a whole lot of sense from a FLUFF perspective that an Apothecary wouldn't help out a Commander, from a GAME perspective it makes perfect sense. . .ICs don't get buffs simply by joining units unless the rule specifically says that they do.

If each model had FNP as a special rule per model then I could agree.. But if the pain boyz confers the ability to the unit then does an IC count as part of a unit when he/its/she joins one?

The bit that gives the FNP rule is the mad docs specail rules which mentions the unit. The IC thing rulebook is to stop beasted demon princes infiltrating and crazieness like that by joining units with innate special abilities.

As an aside, a Space Marine commander with a command squad is no longer an IC. He is a part of that squad and only becomes an IC again if everyone else in the command squad is dead. Wouldn't that make him part of the unit and allow him to benefit from FNP? I would make a similiar argument for a warboss, but IIRC they cannot buy a retinue.

Razerous wrote:If each model had FNP as a special rule per model then I could agree.. But if the pain boyz confers the ability to the unit then does an IC count as part of a unit when he/its/she joins one?

The bit that gives the FNP rule is the mad docs specail rules which mentions the unit. The IC thing rulebook is to stop beasted demon princes infiltrating and crazieness like that by joining units with innate special abilities.

Yes, we agree that Painboyz confer the ability on the unit. But there is no evidence that you ignore the basic rules for ICs that prevents them from gaining a special rule by joining a unit.

PanzerLeader wrote:As an aside, a Space Marine commander with a command squad is no longer an IC. He is a part of that squad and only becomes an IC again if everyone else in the command squad is dead. Wouldn't that make him part of the unit and allow him to benefit from FNP? I would make a similiar argument for a warboss, but IIRC they cannot buy a retinue.

You are incorrect and are thinking about the old Space Marine codex. In the new codex SM characters are not permanently attached to their command squads.

I don't think it's that cut and dry Yak. Conferring a rule onto a unit is something quite different than the unit having the rule standard and the IC joining attempting to benefit.

If you consider the phrase: "He confers the FNP ability to his unit" to take place only during list creation then sure, it's cut and dry the unit has FNP, the IC joins but he doesn't benefit from it per the IC rules.

However, the Painboy rule doesn't say that it only happens at list creation. If you interpret this phrase to take place at any time (or all the time), then it's as simple as:
Is model part of unit?
Painboy confers Feel no Pain to model.
IC rules not required because we're not talking about the IC gaining feel no pain from joining the unit, we're talking about the Painboy conferring feel no pain onto the IC because he's part of the unit. It's two distinct ways of looking at the same situation.

Cheers moz, you put it much more succinctly. It also works along the lines of - if you were to ever kill of the painboy (the eldar power Mindwar, for example) then the entire unit would stop having FNP.

Plus it isnt a rule marked out by the dex that automatically gets lost by IC's joining/vice versa. Shuch as fleet or infiltrate.

I'm glad I read this thread, or I would have never realised and would have been playing this wrong!

Does a waagh! banner benefit a warboss? Also, the anti-conferral crowd could cite the fact that ICs are treated as separate units for CC.

We know that the IC isn't a part of the unit during Assault. So it would not get FNP at that point.

Democratus wrote:We know that the IC isn't a part of the unit during Assault. So it would not get FNP at that point.

ICs only count as a separate unit for the purposes of resolving attacks, they are still a part of the unit they are in for all other purposes.

Moz wrote:I don't think it's that cut and dry Yak. Conferring a rule onto a unit is something quite different than the unit having the rule standard and the IC joining attempting to benefit.

If you consider the phrase: "He confers the FNP ability to his unit" to take place only during list creation then sure, it's cut and dry the unit has FNP, the IC joins but he doesn't benefit from it per the IC rules.

However, the Painboy rule doesn't say that it only happens at list creation. If you interpret this phrase to take place at any time (or all the time), then it's as simple as:
Is model part of unit?
Painboy confers Feel no Pain to model.
IC rules not required because we're not talking about the IC gaining feel no pain from joining the unit, we're talking about the Painboy conferring feel no pain onto the IC because he's part of the unit. It's two distinct ways of looking at the same situation.

You are right. As far as you have taken it.

The general rule states that the unit gets the effect of the unit. So with just that rule, it will effect the models in the unit, any attached IC, perhaps some shield drones, Cron warriors that 'joined' from another unit, etc. Anything that is now considered to be part of that unit, will be effected by that rule.

Except... there is a specific rule that makes an exception for an IC. The *only* way a special rule will effect an IC, is if it *specifically* states it will effect an IC. Since it doesn't.... it doesn't.

coredump wrote:Except... there is a specific rule that makes an exception for an IC. The *only* way a special rule will effect an IC, is if it *specifically* states it will effect an IC. Since it doesn't.... it doesn't.

I've looked in the rulebook and haven't found this - can you reference it?

There is no asterisk beside the FNP USR.

G

Traskel wrote:

coredump wrote:Except... there is a specific rule that makes an exception for an IC. The *only* way a special rule will effect an IC, is if it *specifically* states it will effect an IC. Since it doesn't.... it doesn't.

I've looked in the rulebook and haven't found this - can you reference it?

PLease read Yakfaces 2nd reply

yakface wrote:

In the case of Mad Dok Grotsnik, the ability most certainly specifies that it is conferred the unit (so it is) but nothing speciifes that Grotsnik himself (or any other IC that joins the unit) benefits from the special rule so he does not.

So a Painboy gets FNP from carrying Dok's Tools but Grotsnik does not?

Page 48 of the rulebook under "special rules".


Thanks for making this clear OP, Drunkspleen, and Yakface.

I'd love to see this in the FAQ though, people are going to have issues with this.

I don't see why it should be an issue. It's not like it cripples this very uber unit.

G

But the unit got no special rules. The nob unit does not have FNP or +1 WS.

The special rules comes from an item of wargear that affects everyone in the unit. As long as a IC is joined to a unit he is part of the unit.
The wargear affect everyone in the unit.

As much as I hate the rules, I have to agree with Yak. It says very specifically that special rules are not transfered to and from IC to attachedsquads unless it says specifically in the special rule section as "stuborn". Stuborn says very clearly "IC with this rule pass it on to any unit he joins."

Webbe wrote:But the unit got no special rules. The nob unit does not have FNP or +1 WS.

The special rules comes from an item of wargear that affects everyone in the unit. As long as a IC is joined to a unit he is part of the unit.
The wargear affect everyone in the unit.

Agreed, the non-conferral crowd keeps citing "special rule" but in the Ork Codex FNP is not listed as a special rule at all. It is from wargear. Page 48 deals only with "special rules" not with wargear. P. 74 deals with USR provides the * rule and the "codex trumps rulebook."

Being 'attached' to a unit and being 'part' of a unit are completely different concepts imho.

olympia wrote:

Webbe wrote:But the unit got no special rules. The nob unit does not have FNP or +1 WS.

The special rules comes from an item of wargear that affects everyone in the unit. As long as a IC is joined to a unit he is part of the unit.
The wargear affect everyone in the unit.

Agreed, the non-conferral crowd keeps citing "special rule" but in the Ork Codex FNP is not listed as a special rule at all. It is from wargear. Page 48 deals only with "special rules" not with wargear. P. 74 deals with USR provides the * rule and the "codex trumps rulebook."

It's wargear that grants the USR (Universal Special Rule) "feel no pain".

Ozymandias, King of Kings

To those who are trying to quibble between whether the FNP is from a "special rule" or a piece of "wargear," you have to consider that FNP is a Universal Special Rule.

Regardless of how the unit derives the benefit of that USR, it is still a USR. Unless specifically stated, a unit's USRs are not conveyed to or from an IC.

To use the old "premise:conclusion" format:

P1: Feel No Pain is described under the USR section of the rule book.
P2: There is no alternative description for how the Feel No Pain ability granted to a unit by a Pain Boy works in Codex: Orks (unlike, for example, how the DE Grotesque's "Feel No Pain" rule works).

C1: The Feel No Pain ability granted by a Pain Boy is the same as the USR appearing in the BRB and follows those rules.

P3: A Pain Boy joined to an Ork unit confers the Feel No Pain ability to the unit he joins.
P4: Unless otherwise noted, a unit with Feel No Pain does not confer that rule to any IC that is joined to that unit, and vice versa.
P5: The rules in Codex: Orks for the Pain Boy and/or his wargear to not specify that the Feel No Pain rule is conferred on any/all IC's joined to that unit.

C2: IC's (such as a Warboss) joined to such a unit of Orks including a Pain Boy do not benefit from Feel No Pain.

olympia wrote:
Agreed, the non-conferral crowd keeps citing "special rule" but in the Ork Codex FNP is not listed as a special rule at all. It is from wargear. Page 48 deals only with "special rules" not with wargear. P. 74 deals with USR provides the * rule and the "codex trumps rulebook."

Hrm. Ok, assuming you're correct, where exactly are the rules for the "ability" "Feel No Pain" that is granted by the "wargear" item? I mean, you're contending that it is somehow different from the USR "Feel No Pain," and doesn't need to adhere to the rules for the USR. If that's the case, where are the rules for this Orky version of FNP and how does it work?

I am going to disagree here and say that the unit doesn't have FNP and thus isn't covered under the caveat of a unit not giving the upgrade. It is an individual model that gives it to his unit. The character is a part of that unit and is affected.

If Telion snipes out the painboy, the unit loses FNP meaning it isn't an ability inherent to the unit. Therefore the unit is not conferring the ability.

edit: I will just either roll with my opponent or let them choose how it goes until it is faqed because I think both arguments have merit.

That is definatly a very interesting point.

There's a big difference between joining a unit with a painboy or a narthecium with a boss or Captain, and say, a Chaplain joining a bunch of Death Company Marines.

After rethinking and reading this, I'm inclined to say that the +1 WS from the Waaaag banner is given to the IC.

But I still agree that the FNP doesn't work for the IC.

I will need to read the +1WS since it is a piece of wargear and not a special rule.

But reading this I have to agree that the warboss DOES NOT get FNP

Just one little thing... the painboy does not join the unit, he is already part of it. Only the boss Joins it.

For you fluff people:
Da boss wouldn't want some git wurking on 'ez head like he's some weedy grot

For you people who think in real life the doc would help:
In real life there are no orkz

Somnicide wrote:I am going to disagree here and say that the unit doesn't have FNP and thus isn't covered under the caveat of a unit not giving the upgrade. It is an individual model that gives it to his unit. The character is a part of that unit and is affected.

If Telion snipes out the painboy, the unit loses FNP meaning it isn't an ability inherent to the unit. Therefore the unit is not conferring the ability.

edit: I will just either roll with my opponent or let them choose how it goes until it is faqed because I think both arguments have merit.

Ok, so the unit doesn't have it, but an individual model gives it to them?

The unit either has it or it doesn't.

Where it comes from is irrelevant, really. This is in complete accordance with the rules. FNP is not granted from an IC to a unit or from a unit to an IC unless specifically stated otherwise. The Pain Boy specifically gives the FNP to the unit. This is allowed for by the specific wording of the Pain Boy's rules. There is no further wording of the Pain Boy's rules that additionally extends that coverage to any IC that has joined the unit.

If the intent was to have this FNP ability extend to ICs joined to that unit, it would have been simple to word the rule as the Pain Boy grants FNP to "the unit and any ICs attached to that unit." This would have covered all bases and allowed for the prohibitions present in the BRB.

"A Mob including a Waaagh banner has +1 WS"

As Mob and Unit are terms used completely interchangeably in the Ork codex, I would assume that the circumstances are the same. However +1 WS is not a USR, but I am left to wonder why the specific rules of a model in a codex are overruled by General primary rulebook conditions just because FNP is a USR.

P1 A painboy confers feel no pain onto his unit
P2 A warboss joined to the unit is part of the unit
C1 A painboy confers feel no pain onto a warboss in his unit

And the argument is that he does not, because feel no pain is a USR?

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it is thankfully rare that Warbosses actually take FNP in practice, so it's likely to not come up much. In practice it has been used to catch the first krak missile (or equivalent Str 8 AP3-6) shot fired at the unit to avoid losing an entire nob, and any non-fist non power weapon closecombat attacks that manage to get past T6 (on a bike).

So how do you people that don't think an IC gets FNP from a painboy treat Mad Dok Grotsnik?

His unit is himself so I guess he can never confer FNP on anyone else by your reading?

Moz, I understand what you are saying, but the rules state that a special ability is not passed on to the IC unless it is specifically granted. Since the Painboy does not specifically grant the IC the USR Feel No Pain, it is not granted.

You are right that it makes little difference. The Warboss uses his T6 and cover save a lot more than the Feel No Pain save.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Moz wrote:

And the argument is that he does not, because feel no pain is a USR?

Actually, that is exactly the argument.

Feel No Pain, as it pertains to the Codex: Orks, only has one set of rules. Those rules appear in the BRB under the section for the Universal Special Rules.

You see, it doesn't matter if the Warboss is "part" of the unit; he is, by rule, "joined" to the unit. The Pain Boy is a unit upgrade that confers FNP on the unit. A unit's FNP is not conferred onto joined IC's.

As I said in my previous post, if the intent was to have joined IC's benefit from the FNP, the Pain Boy's wording could easily have been changed to include joined IC's.

However, the wording was not done in such a manner.

And, still, I really don't understand the argument that the unit doesn't have FNP, but they get it from a unit upgrade. I repeat; either the unit has Feel No Pain, or it doesn't.

I mean, I know that such comparisons are always suspect, but if I don't have $10, but then a friend gives me $10, do I have $10 or not?

Webbe wrote:So how do you people that don't think an IC gets FNP from a painboy treat Mad Dok Grotsnik?

His unit is himself so I guess he can never confer FNP on anyone else by your reading?

Does not Grotsnik have a specific rule that states he confers it onto a unit he joins?

The BRB states that there is no IC to unit or unit to IC transfer of the USR unless specifically allowed by the rules for the unit/IC in question. If Mr. Grotsnik has rules that state he confers the ability, then this is an exception allowed for by the rules.

Saldiven wrote:

And, still, I really don't understand the argument that the unit doesn't have FNP, but they get it from a unit upgrade. I repeat; either the unit has Feel No Pain, or it doesn't.

I mean, I know that such comparisons are always suspect, but if I don't have $10, but then a friend gives me $10, do I have $10 or not?

So would the unit still have feel no pain per your understanding if the Painboy is removed from play? Just trying to see where this is going.

IMHO, I believe the term found in the BRB in the IC section "Unless specified in the rule itself...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

is being misunderstood by the vast majority.

Questions you need to ask:

1) Does the rule ever say anywhere in the rule *has* to include the term IC in it for it to include ICs or another unit? Or does it say "unless specified in the rule itself"? What does that mean?

2) Is an IC a unit?

3) Does the term "confer to the unit" or anything similar include ICs? and if not, why?

Truly this discussion stems from the vast majority of readers that the words "Independent Character" now *has* to be in every rule for it to work with ICs

4) Does the Chaplains special rule work for other ICs in his unit? like fearless and re-roll misses? (example, lets say you have a captain, chaplain, and a unit of marines. The chaplain confers fearless to the unit he is with [note it doesn't include IC in the rule, just the squad he is with] so everyone has fearless EXCEPT the captain, so by going by the BRB, the unit now no longer has fearless, is this how you [being the proverbial you] think this should work?)

-----Going by this logic it doesn't.

Simply put: This rule was made for units/mobs/whatever that had its own *innate* ability/special rule (like Grotesques, Death company, etc..) *Not* for special rules that specify they are supposed to work for the *unit* he is with.

Honestly where this is going, it will apply to *ALOT* more than most posters realize.

something to ponder

Honestly, I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and re-read the rules how the Pain Boy's rules in entirety are written.

But to use my suspect analogy from above:

If I don't have $10 bucks, and my friend gives me $10, do I still have $10 if my friend moves to Zimbabwe?

(See, analogies are always suspect.)

padixon wrote:IMHO, I believe the term found in the BRB in the IC section "Unless specified in the rule itself...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

is being misunderstood by the vast majority.

Questions you need to ask:

1) Does the rule ever say anywhere in the rule *has* to include the term IC in it for it to include ICs or another unit? Or does it say "unless specified in the rule itself"? What does that mean?

Um...it means that if a unit has one of the specified USRs that cannot be transferred to a joined IC, then the IC in question gains no benefit from that ability unless something in the rules specifically over-rides this prohibition. Honestly, I don't see the confusion, other than some people want their Warboss to have FNP, regardless of what the rules say on the matter.

2) Is an IC a unit?

By the rules, an IC is a unit that has specific rules that govern its behavior on the tabletop.

3) Does the term "confer to the unit" or anything similar include ICs? and if not, why?

It will depend on the situation. If the ability being conferred onto a unit is one that is defined as being one of the USR's that specifically does not go from unit to IC, then, no, it doesn't transfer to the IC. If it is an ability that is not listed as something that cannot be transferred, it may be transferred.

Truly this discussion stems from the vast majority of readers that the words "Independent Character" now *has* to be in every rule for it to work with ICs

No, actually, it only has to be included for a very limited situation. If a unit has an ability that is governed by one of the USRs from the BRB and that ability is specifically not transferred to joined IC's by the rules in the BRB, then the unit's specific rules must state that the ability is transferred to the IC. If the unit ability in question is one that is not governed by the USRs in the BRB, then we do not have an issue.

4) Does the Chaplains special rule work for other ICs in his unit? like fearless and re-roll misses?

-----Going by this logic it doesn't.

So? Maybe that was intended as an issue of balance so that another IC can't benefit from the Chaplain's special rules. This assumption is every bit as valid as your own.

Simply put: This rule was made for units/mobs/whatever that had its own *innate* ability/special rule (like Grotesques, Death company, etc..) *Not* for special rules that specify they are supposed to work for the *unit* he is with.

This is a complete assumption by yourself that is not backed up by anything in any of the rule books.

Honestly where this is going, it will apply to *ALOT* more than most posters realize.

something to ponder

The FNP granted by a painboy or mad doc grotsnik comes from a piece of wargear. The wargear rules say it confers the FNP special rule to the painboy's unit( CO:p. 38).

IC's cannot grant or receive the benefits of a non-shared special rule with a unit they join (BRB: p. 48).

Thus according to RAW:
A Warboss joining a nob mob with a painboy would not get FNP.

Mad Doc Grotsnik would not grant FNP to anyone but himself as he is a unit of 1. Even if he joins a unit, he can't grant them FNP as an IC.

if the boss is in the unit, does he not have to test and move as the unit does? would it not make sense then that he would get FNP? rule wise, it makes sense to not give it to him so there is a chance to kill hte boss, fluff wise the boss should get it.

grotsnik has the doc's tools, which says ,in its entry on p. 38 taht it confers FNP to the unit, if grotsnik is in the unit, does he not confer it to the unit? why does him being an IC cancel that out? it is stated in the codex that it goes to the unit, wouldnt that over rule the rules?

Webbe wrote:So how do you people that don't think an IC gets FNP from a painboy treat Mad Dok Grotsnik?

His unit is himself so I guess he can never confer FNP on anyone else by your reading?

Exactly. They are overlooking that Mad Dok Grotsnik just has dok's tools. And the rules for those are found in the Painboyz wargear and that's it. So there is nothing other than the codex description for dok's tools that is applicable here.

Well there you go...according to some peoples reading of the rules

Never attach any IC to a unit with a Chaplain, because they will not be fearless anymore.

silly

utan wrote:The FNP granted by a painboy or mad doc grotsnik comes from a piece of wargear. The wargear rules say it confers the FNP special rule to the painboy's unit( CO:p. 38).

IC's cannot grant or receive the benefits of a non-shared special rule with a unit they join (BRB: p. 48).

Thus according to RAW:
A Warboss joining a nob mob with a painboy would not get FNP.

Mad Doc Grotsnik would not grant FNP to anyone but himself as he is a unit of 1. Even if he joins a unit, he can't grant them FNP as an IC.

No this is wrong. FNP does not have a "*" so therefore the IC doesn't lose it when he joins a unit!

yakface wrote:

olympia wrote:
So the Painboy's FNP does confer to the Warboss because it "specifies in the rule itself" that FNP from the dok's tools is granted to the painboy's unit. Mind you, Mad Doc Grotsnik also has Dok's Tools, the exact same wargear as a Painboy, and clearly Mad Doc's FNP is meant to affect more than just himself? Yakface, would you agree with that?

Nope, you've got it backwards. Read page 48 of the rulebook under "special rules". An IC who joins a unit does not confer the rule upon the unit, and vice-versa unless the rule specifies otherwise.

In the case of Mad Dok Grotsnik, the ability most certainly specifies that it is conferred the unit (so it is) but nothing speciifes that Grotsnik himself (or any other IC that joins the unit) benefits from the special rule so he does not.

QFT

p48 of the BRB. ...Unless specified in the rule itself.. ..the unit's special are not conferred upon the character ...

Okay. cool.

p74 of the BRB .. the one in the codex takes precedensce ..

Now reading the FNP in the BRB (p75) simply mentions what the rule does. Unlike the stubborn rule which mentions somthing about IC.

ORK GROBBER NOBS special rules : Fleet, infiltrate, FNP

^^ a warboss joining this unit wouldnt get fleet, (assuming it doesnt come with fleet), infiltrate or FNP. The first two due to the lil * (p78, 3rd paragraph) and the third due to p48 of the BRB.

This unit doesnt exist. Nor do nobz get FNP as a special rule.


A: So, refering to P74 of the BRB, (we also see that FNP doesnt have a *) we can look to the ork codex to see thier use of the rule. The rule works as FNP but its application from the mad doc confers the FNP to a unit. When the IC joins that unit you look at the FNP then follow the procedure from A

In the above.. am I going wrong somwhere? Also.. P73 I think.. Walkers in CC, front armour ALL the time.. Ironclads. You ignore shaken and stunned (i think).. Its horrible.

The fact that FNP is a USR isn't even relevant really. It could be any "special Rule", it does not have to be a Universal Special Rule.

If the wargear let the unit move one extra inch each turn, it would not apply to the IC unless it specifically said it did.

Edit: oops sorry I brainfarted

nostromo.. if this make-believe ORK GROBBER NOBZ came with the FNP, the warboos would not gain FNP (Due to p48 of the BRB).

- reguardless of the lack of an *

Im still sticking by my point but I dont see what yours is.

Coredump - its really relevenet. Just because. If I have to explain.. read the above.

Also.. I wanna make an Iron clad MotF list now...

nostromo wrote:Let us open the big red bible at page 74, the chapter of 'universal special rules', paragraph 3 to recite following psalm :
"the special rules marked with an asterisk(*) are automatically lost by an ic if he joins a unit that does not have the same special rule..."
Now I will invite this congregation to meditate on the third paragraph of page 75 and especially consider the absence of asterisk sign(*) at this particular entry.

QFT to show that the previous QFT was not the T.

Edit: Shot down!

coredump wrote:The fact that FNP is a USR isn't even relevant really. It could be any "special Rule", it does not have to be a Universal Special Rule.

If the wargear let the unit move one extra inch each turn, it would not apply to the IC unless it specifically said it did.

And likewise an IC doesn't grant rules to a unit unless it specifically says it does. So Mad Dok doesn't grant FNP to a unit he joins, or Khan doesn't grant hit and run + furious charge to a unit he joins? This line of reasoning breaks a couple of well known models doesn't it?

Platuan4th wrote:
By this, if I join a Chaos Lord to a unit of Chaos Marines with an Icon, he suddenly gains that mark, as the Icon gives the Mark to the unit, just like the Painboy. Actually, I'm going to start using this interpretation as my Lash Sorc with a unit of Tzeentch Icon Marines now has a 4+ Invulnerable!

Straw man, easily defeated at that. Wording of Icon conferrance is: "All models in the unit, except independent characters joining the unit, have the mark of X"

Moz wrote:Straw man, easily defeated at that. Wording of Icon conferrance is: "All models in the unit, except independent characters joining the unit, have the mark of X"

LoL. Teach me not to look at my Codex and only work on memory.

olympia wrote: FNP does not have a "*" so therefore the IC doesn't lose it when he joins a unit!

I didn't say Mad Doc lost FNP, merely that it only applies to him. The rules for Doc's Tools say that they confer FNP to "his unit" and not a unit or any unit he is attached to.
The unit doesn't lose FNP either, it just never had it.

Aha rubbish. his unit easily interperates to a unit he is attached to.

As in : Hes in a unit. You look at the rule and read 'His unit' . . . . . What else can you come to? His own two units, below the belt, have feel no pain? Corr.. Orky!

Razerous wrote:nostromo.. if this make-believe ORK GROBBER NOBZ came with the FNP, the warboos would not gain FNP (Due to p48 of the BRB).

- reguardless of the lack of an *

Im still sticking by my point but I dont see what yours is.

My point crashed & burned by a wellplaced shot of page 48, the first paragraph after the list of bulletpoints.
It looked relevant at the time but has no impact nor creates any contradictions with the IC section.

I think this is something I'll have to work out with my gaming group. I can see why special rules normally can't be tranferred to another unit, but sounds like one of the few times where it would make sense.

Not to throw a monkey wrench into things (as I feel it can be read either way). But please look at the first paragraph on page 49, second sentence, 4th line.

"Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit..."

also similarly stated in the assault section, same page, end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of Independent Characters & Assaults.

so if the painboy confers FNP to his unit, and the warboss is part of the unit, then wouldnt he get it.

I can follow that if they naturally got FNP, like a plague marine, that he wouldnt get it, but the wording is that the painboy gives it to his unit.


Just a thought for discussion.

Good point fraustdemon.

Now heres a little info that is pointless to the post so sorry but it must be said.

Any and all who use the term BRB your posts are very wrong, because its the BGB so there for your telling us to look in the wrong book this isnt warhammer fantasy people.

Either way i really dont care im board at work. and everyone has really good points in this post.

Moz wrote:

coredump wrote:The fact that FNP is a USR isn't even relevant really. It could be any "special Rule", it does not have to be a Universal Special Rule.

actually it references the FNP ability which doesn't exist so they by raw shouldn't have it at all

If the wargear let the unit move one extra inch each turn, it would not apply to the IC unless it specifically said it did.

And likewise an IC doesn't grant rules to a unit unless it specifically says it does. So Mad Dok doesn't grant FNP to a unit he joins, or Khan doesn't grant hit and run + furious charge to a unit he joins? This line of reasoning breaks a couple of well known models doesn't it?

I would agree by raw. Mad dok can't use his ability on any unit he joins. AND YES it does break a few well known models... see below

Let's use you're argument against you. I will reference SNIKROT:

1) Snikrot gives his unit the "ambush ability."
Ambush reads "Snikrot and his unit may be held in reserve. When snikrot and his unit are available they may move on from any table edge."
2) You can join an IC to a unit while it is in reserve.
3) If you join Ghazzie to the Snikrot using the warboss joining the nobz mob argument, ghazzie can come on from any table edge.
This would break a well known model

See where I am going with this? Most players would agree you can not do this. In the same light the warboss joining the unit should not be able to benefit from the FNP.

An IC is a part of the unit he is with. He is part of the unit for movement, shooting, and cc ( but may be picked out ) purposes.

You shoot at the squad and the IC can be effected. The IC moves at the slowest speed of the unit. The IC tests for morale checks with it's unit.

He does not however gain the benefit of a special rule that his unit has, as Yakface has pointed out for us, ( pg 48 of the rulebook ). So I do not need to explain this any further as pgs 48 and 74 tell us all we need to know.

However,

He can still be effected by a units special rule in some cases even though he does not have that rule himself. For example if a Big Mek, without Mega Armour, were joined to a unit of Mega Nobz. He would have to move at the speed of his unit, as if he were in difficult terrain, because the rest of his unit is slow and purposeful ( similar to what coredump mentioned with his unit moving 7" ).

This still would not make him wear Mega Armour or have any of the benefits eg: relentless / slow and purposeful. This is due to the rule on pg 48.




"piece of wargear"
I'd be careful using that term nowadays. A lot of the old 'wargear' is now 'options'. It does still exist, but not in the Ork codex.

40k rulebook pg 28: " Look to your wargear!"
Middle: " I can't it's 5th!"

Wargear does however bring me to think of another point. What I am going to call 'Dark Age' codecies do still however use the old wargear system so: IG Officers can benefit from their units medi-pack. Go Go Guard!

Medics are skilled.
Painboyz have a hobby.

This is classic YMDC. You just have to love it.

G

I think this one is an obvious loop hole that GW missed. Where you can see where it is supposed to be implemented (apothecary to commander, or Chaplain fearless/re-roll to IC with squad) and others which don't make sense (Chaos Icon to IC or, like you said, snikrots ability to a Warboss)

This totally reminds me of 4th editions RAW discussion about rapid fire weapons, where by RAW if you had one, and fired a pistol, you could not assault (until it was FAQ'd of course).

padixon wrote:I think this one is an obvious loop hole that GW missed. Where you can see where it is supposed to be implemented (apothecary to commander, or Chaplain fearless/re-roll to IC with squad) and others which don't make sense (Chaos Icon to IC or, like you said, snikrots ability to a Warboss)

This totally reminds me of 4th editions RAW discussion about rapid fire weapons, where by RAW if you had one, and fired a pistol, you could not assault (until it was FAQ'd of course).

I agree. But to clear things up, Mad docs rules do NOT say he gives FNP to the unit he joins. He gives the other rule to them ;p

Ahhh - well the 40k rulebook has red on it. P.0

@Frgsin = You make a good point but thats why infiltrate has that * next to it. This ability is very like infiltrate so id suggest the reason why is looks/feels so broken is the same reason why GW added that * to infiltrate. --- And what other rules does Mad doc give then?

Your point highlights an issue with that particular special rule but in my mind its similiar enough to infiltrate for it not to be relevant to the topics FNP rant. Although Im not saying you cudnt do what you proposed.

& Thanks fraustdemon, I forgot to mention that point but yea, IC counts as part of the unit (thus 'his unit' applies to everyone - legaility permitting)

Good find on the snikrot entry froggy. What this does is shows that both ways are played wrong on either side of the spectrum (one way or the other), the painboy giving FNP to an IC is just close enough to the center for us to argue about it.

Blech!

OTOH, if an Inquisitor joins a Marine Command Squad with an Apothecary...

Razerous wrote:Ahhh - well the 40k rulebook has red on it. P.0

@Frgsin = You make a good point but thats why infiltrate has that * next to it. This ability is very like infiltrate so id suggest the reason why is looks/feels so broken is the same reason why GW added that * to infiltrate. --- And what other rules does Mad doc give then?

Your point highlights an issue with that particular special rule but in my mind its similiar enough to infiltrate for it not to be relevant to the topics FNP rant. Although Im not saying you cudnt do what you proposed.

& Thanks fraustdemon, I forgot to mention that point but yea, IC counts as part of the unit (thus 'his unit' applies to everyone - legaility permitting)

Snikrots ability is not infiltrate he has his own special rule they follow instead of outflanking.

Moz wrote:Good find on the snikrot entry froggy. What this does is shows that both ways are played wrong on either side of the spectrum (one way or the other), the painboy giving FNP to an IC is just close enough to the center for us to argue about it.

Blech!

Also, Snikrot is not an IC, but a unit upgrade which can be taken instead of a Nob.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Also, Snikrot is not an IC, but a unit upgrade which can be taken instead of a Nob.

YES we know

please read this again. Snikrot, like a pain boy is a Unit upgrade.

They give their unit an ability.

ICs joining the unit should not gain the ability.

Well, that Snikkrot arguement is flawed or simply wrong.
Infiltrate is marked with a * so this rule cant be transferred to a Warboss joining that unit. So we wont see a flanking Ghazzie

There are some other examples we could get on. Take S&P for example. The rulebook says the units moves with the with the speed of the slowest one but on page 48 it says USRs cant be trasferred from a unit to an IC and vice versa. So what should I take when I add Ghazz to a mob of Nobz or a Warboss to a mob of MANz? Should I take the movement rule or argue that the S&P rule cant be transferred? Personally I think that´s a studpid question and the whole unit is slow&purposeful but there is room to argue against though.

The thing with the Waaagh! Banner is easy imo. An IC counts as an IC during the close combat so no IC will be affected from a Waaagh! Banner.
The Grotsnik thingy is a bit hum, well difficult imho. Page 49 says, during the close combat phase an IC isnt part of the attached unit. It will be part of the unit after every attack is rolled out. That would mean, you cant use Grotsniks FNP rule because he isnt part of his unit as long as the close combat goes. On the other hand the Ork dex says Grotsnik cant leave his unit until he´s the last unit in the attached unit. And because Dex > BGB the close combat rule for ICs in the BGB doesnt count for Grotsnik.
This YMDK Sub makes my brain melting.

DaDok wrote:Well, that Snikkrot arguement is flawed or simply wrong.
Infiltrate is marked with a * so this rule cant be transferred to a Warboss joining that unit. So we wont see a flanking Ghazzie

There are some other examples we could get on. Take S&P for example. The rulebook says the units moves with the with the speed of the slowest one but on page 48 it says USRs cant be trasferred from a unit to an IC and vice versa. So what should I take when I add Ghazz to a mob of Nobz or a Warboss to a mob of MANz? Should I take the movement rule or argue that the S&P rule cant be transferred? Personally I think that´s a studpid question and the whole unit is slow&purposeful but there is room to argue against though.

The thing with the Waaagh! Banner is easy imo. An IC counts as an IC during the close combat so no IC will be affected from a Waaagh! Banner.
The Grotsnik thingy is a bit hum, well difficult imho. Page 49 says, during the close combat phase an IC isnt part of the attached unit. It will be part of the unit after every attack is rolled out. That would mean, you cant use Grotsniks FNP rule because he isnt part of his unit as long as the close combat goes. On the other hand the Ork dex says Grotsnik cant leave his unit until he´s the last unit in the attached unit. And because Dex > BGB the close combat rule for ICs in the BGB doesnt count for Grotsnik.
This YMDK Sub makes my brain melting.

REREAD THE * again slowly and carefully.

it says the ability is lost automatically BY BOTH. This means that the ENTIRE UNIT AND IC lose the ability.

The Rules for ICs joining state one only ONE would not benefit.

ALSO
INFILTRATE is DIFFERENT than the ambush ability.

Point is, its only different in the ork handbook

- like in my previous post i mentioned that its very similiar to infiltrate ( Hey or Scouts, due to the flanking type of entry - take ur pick).

Both of these skills have an *


They have it for a reason. The ork codex snikkrot special rule isnt directly linked to the BGB and gets left out but with the way those above two work & thier restrictions id say its totally irrelevant to the warboss FNP rule.

The fact on its own thats its a specail rule with no direct linking to the USR's is enough to leave it outta this FNP debate. The FNP isnt a * so it gets confered to the entire unit.

The warboss counts as a seperate unit when making/taking attacks but in combat resolution (am I right here?) they then become one again.

Razerous wrote:Point is, its only different in the ork handbook

- like in my previous post i mentioned that its very similiar to infiltrate ( Hey or Scouts, due to the flanking type of entry - take ur pick).

Both of these skills have an *


They have it for a reason. The ork codex snikkrot special rule isnt directly linked to the BGB and gets left out but with the way those above two work & thier restrictions id say its totally irrelevant to the warboss FNP rule.

The fact on its own thats its a specail rule with no direct linking to the USR's is enough to leave it outta this FNP debate. The FNP isnt a * so it gets confered to the entire unit.

The warboss counts as a seperate unit when making/taking attacks but in combat resolution (am I right here?) they then become one again.

Please read the post of mine above yours about the * debate.

I will repost it for you.

REREAD THE * again slowly and carefully.

the * by the ability says the ability is lost automatically BY BOTH. This means that the ENTIRE UNIT AND IC lose the ability.

The Rules for ICs joining state are different. The state that only ONE would not benefit.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Razerous wrote:Point is, its only different in the ork handbook

- like in my previous post i mentioned that its very similiar to infiltrate ( Hey or Scouts, due to the flanking type of entry - take ur pick).

Both of these skills have an *


They have it for a reason. The ork codex snikkrot special rule isnt directly linked to the BGB and gets left out but with the way those above two work & thier restrictions id say its totally irrelevant to the warboss FNP rule.

The fact on its own thats its a specail rule with no direct linking to the USR's is enough to leave it outta this FNP debate. The FNP isnt a * so it gets confered to the entire unit.

The warboss counts as a seperate unit when making/taking attacks but in combat resolution (am I right here?) they then become one again.

Please read the post of mine above yours about the * debate.

I will repost it for you.

REREAD THE * again slowly and carefully.

the * by the ability says the ability is lost automatically BY BOTH. This means that the ENTIRE UNIT AND IC lose the ability.

The Rules for ICs joining state are different. The state that only ONE would not benefit.

The ways the rules are written these do NOT contradict each other. Follow my flow chart.

Is the ability marked by an asterisk (*).
YES- Neither get the ability. Stop here
NO- continue on

Is the ability an IC ability/special rule the unit does not have?
Yes- Only the IC that had the ability before they are joined benefits. Stop here
No- continue on

Is the ability one the Unit possess before the IC joins but not one the IC himself has?
Yes- Only the Unit benefits, not the IC. Stop here
No- continue on

Do both the unit and the IC have the ability?
yes - Both get it. Stop here
No - go back and check the above you missed something.

Whats your point? I understand and have read both the bits about IC joining and the * bit about rules..

In the first bit, 'unless specified in the rule itself'

FNP - (Codex application of FNP take prescendence) In the orky dex mad doc description is says it gives FNP to the unit.

Due to the rules (back in the BGB) on IC joining and then counting as part of that unit then therefor allow the IC to gain the orky version of FNP..

(Sorry for repeating myself)

As for Snikkrot.. his ability isnt listed in the USR but is very similiar to scouts and/or infiltrate. And those two do have * (as they are intended to not allow IC gaining those types of abilities) - thus irrelevant to the FNP discussion as FNP isnt an * rule.

Where are you coming from Frgsin?

People citing p. 49 are pulling the line out of context. The full quote is "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets". That rule is purely for use in the context of that phase and has nothing to do with special rules.

The full rules for handling ICs joined to a unit is contained in a nice full-page box on p. 48. There is a nice section titled "Special Rules" which tells you all you need to know about how to handle special rules that are not shared between the IC and the joined 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." Please note that this doesn't specify that this applies to USRs only or whether they are granted by gear or are inherent.

For the orky doc, it all boils down to if you concider the IC as part of the unit or not. For virtually every other rule, its explained in thier own dexes (Eldar exarch abilites) or in the BGB.

utan wrote:People citing p. 49 are pulling the line out of context. The full quote is "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets". That rule is purely for use in the context of that phase and has nothing to do with special rules.

I can buy that, even though it is 2 sentences. (the first part inserted to better explain the second) However, Pg 48 shows in the 2nd column, bullet 2: "While an independent character is part of a unit, he..."

This shows that the IC is part of the unit, in all three sections he's part of the unit, in all three sections it says he's part of the unit.

It's going to be one of those things that needs to be agreed upon before the game (or when GW decides to rule on it).

It can still be viewed the way Yak explained (dont get me wrong, Yak does a bang up job), or that the wording confers FNP to the whole unit (including the IC) because it's not a unit special rule per say.

But it would just matter for incoming bullets/projectiles and such stuff eh?
Because during the close combat ICs dont count as a part of the unit they´ve joined before.
So there´s no way an IC could use stuff like FNP during a close combat clash. Except ICs like Grotsnik - maybe - who cant be detached per special rule of the IC itself.
That´s something to discuss as well or at least I would like to see it.
It doesnt matter if a unit like a Warboss can be affected by FNP because:

1) Incoming fire = the owner of the unit can choose which models are affected by the incoming fire. So he can allways ignore the IC and get FNP for the Nobz
2) During close combat the WB doesnt count as part of the unit he´s attached to so no way he can benefit from FNP because he counts as a solo fighting IC.

So we are left with ICs like Grotsnik - for Orkz - who provide FNP to the unit they´re attached to or not and that´s the question I would say.
It´s a bit iffy that a Nobz Dok cant provide FNP to an IC but that´s how the rules are written down eh? At least during close combat and - as said - during shooting phase FNP or not doesnt matter for the IC except he can be targeted by special attacks.

DaDok wrote:
So we are left with ICs like Grotsnik - for Orkz - who provide FNP to the unit they´re attached to or not and that´s the question I would say.
It´s a bit iffy that a Nobz Dok cant provide FNP to an IC but that´s how the rules are written down eh? At least during close combat and - as said - during shooting phase FNP or not doesnt matter for the IC except he can be targeted by special attacks.

ACTUALLY. By the Rules Grotsnik does NOT conver FNP to the unit he joins. Only he gets it. His rules that are confered to the unit is the "must move towards in the enemy at all times" and "fearless" thing. PLease Read this.

He is an IC can as such has the FNP but when he joins the unit, he keeps feel no pain, but the unit does not get it. RAW

I know someone will post and disagree with me and that person who ever they are has not read/reread mad docs rules

So... if a Farseer Fortunes the unit he is with, he does not benefit from it?

Homer

Homer S wrote:So... if a Farseer Fortunes the unit he is with, he does not benefit from it?
Homer

Fortune is not a special rule the unit has BEFORE the character joins. It is a psychic power that affects the unit after he is part of it. This is a seperate issue and yes he benefits.

He is an IC can as such has the FNP but when he joins the unit, he keeps feel no pain, but the unit does not get it. RAW

I know someone will post and disagree with me and that person who ever they are has not read the mad docs rules

Mad Doc Grotsnik comes with Dok's tools as part of his wargear.

Dok's tools: "...he confers Feel no Pain ability to his unit"

So, how exactly does Grotsnik not give FnP *to his unit* ^
l

but you are right, he does not possess any FnP at all, and if you want to agree with some of these crazy posters than he would not gain FnP because he is *not* the unit he gives it too and so does not gain FnP because he would obviously (sarcasm) not gain the units special ability.

So in short

Dok by himself has FnP, because he is a unit of himself and grants himself FnP
Dok in a mob gives FnP to mob and in so doing gives them the FnP special rule and sense he is an IC, then losses said ability that he just gave and would have had, had he not joined the unit.

That is what this boils down too.

Posters *believe* if a unit gains a special rule from an outside source (Grotsnik, painboy) then that rule cannot extend to any IC.

silly

sorry to edit here but I had to throw some more silliness into this thought process some more

2) During close combat the WB doesnt count as part of the unit he´s attached to so no way he can benefit from FNP because he counts as a solo fighting IC.

Going by this logic then, when Grotsnik is in CC, then only he gains FnP because now he is fighting as his own unit (sense he is an IC), and so therefore no longer part of the unit he was with and so the unit would lose FnP during all CC engagements. This is getting good.

again silly.

padixon wrote:

He is an IC can as such has the FNP but when he joins the unit, he keeps feel no pain, but the unit does not get it. RAW

I know someone will post and disagree with me and that person who ever they are has not read the mad docs rules

Mad Doc Grotsnik comes with Dok's tools as part of his wargear.

Dok's tools: "...he confers Feel no Pain ability to his unit"

So, how exactly does Grotsnik not give FnP *to his unit* ^
l

but you are right, he does not possess any FnP at all, and if you want to agree with some of these crazy posters (this is an opinion obviously I could call you names also, but that would digress from having an intelligent discussion) than he would not gain FnP because he is *not* the unit he gives it too and so does not gain FnP because he would obviously (sarcasm) not gain the units special ability.

So in short

Dok by himself has FnP, because he is a unit of himself and grants himself FnP
Dok in a mob gives FnP to mob and in so doing gives them the FnP special rule and sense he is an IC, then losses said ability that he just gave and would have had, had he not joined the unit.
That is what this boils down too. MAYBE YOU DIDN'T READ. Mad Doc KEEPS FNP but the mob does not get it. You are confusing something in the rules and I honestly do not understand your confusion since you are not posting page numbers. Please post the page number after reading the section fully

Posters *believe* if a unit gains a special rule from an outside source (Grotsnik, painboy) then that rule cannot extend to any IC.

silly again opinion. I feel not reading the rules is silly personally

please qoute a page where it says the word MOB and not unit with relation to docs tools. This is not an interchangeable term.

Mad doc is a unit. By himself. please read the section of the book on units where it says a single model such as a hero can be a unit.

frgsinwntr wrote:

DaDok wrote:
So we are left with ICs like Grotsnik - for Orkz - who provide FNP to the unit they´re attached to or not and that´s the question I would say.
It´s a bit iffy that a Nobz Dok cant provide FNP to an IC but that´s how the rules are written down eh? At least during close combat and - as said - during shooting phase FNP or not doesnt matter for the IC except he can be targeted by special attacks.

ACTUALLY. By the Rules Grotsnik does NOT conver FNP to the unit he joins. Only he gets it. His rules that are confered to the unit is the "must move towards in the enemy at all times" and "fearless" thing. PLease Read this.

He is an IC can as such has the FNP but when he joins the unit, he keeps feel no pain, but the unit does not get it. RAW

I know someone will post and disagree with me and that person who ever they are has not read/reread mad docs rules

I know what the BGB and the Dex says Just pointed out sth to discuss. There, so get rid of your Red, it doesnt make your letters getting faster into someones brain

actually the red (or different color) does. But I will not digress and take this OT. If you wish to discuss this, start a new thread.

Note I did not include FNP. the one medpack short or what ever it is called makes no reference to FNP. Please post for me where the FNP is confered on mad docs page as I obviously can not find it. You can copy it word for word and highlight it to make it more obvious for me.

frgsinwntr wrote:

padixon wrote:

He is an IC can as such has the FNP but when he joins the unit, he keeps feel no pain, but the unit does not get it. RAW

I know someone will post and disagree with me and that person who ever they are has not read the mad docs rules

Mad Doc Grotsnik comes with Dok's tools as part of his wargear.

Dok's tools: "...he confers Feel no Pain ability to his unit"

So, how exactly does Grotsnik not give FnP *to his unit* ^
l

but you are right, he does not possess any FnP at all, and if you want to agree with some of these crazy posters (this is an opinion obviously I could call you names also, but that would digress from having an intelligent discussion) than he would not gain FnP because he is *not* the unit he gives it too and so does not gain FnP because he would obviously (sarcasm) not gain the units special ability.

So in short

Dok by himself has FnP, because he is a unit of himself and grants himself FnP
Dok in a mob gives FnP to mob and in so doing gives them the FnP special rule and sense he is an IC, then losses said ability that he just gave and would have had, had he not joined the unit.
That is what this boils down too. MAYBE YOU DIDN'T READ. Mad Doc KEEPS FNP but the mob does not get it. You are confusing something in the rules and I honestly do not understand your confusion since you are not posting page numbers. Please post the page number after reading the section fully

Posters *believe* if a unit gains a special rule from an outside source (Grotsnik, painboy) then that rule cannot extend to any IC.

silly again opinion. I feel not reading the rules is silly personally

please qoute a page where it says the word MOB and not unit with relation to docs tools. This is not an interchangeable term.

Mad doc is a unit. By himself. please read the section of the book on units where it says a single model such as a hero can be a unit.

How can you honestly not understand the words "confers Feel no Pain ability to his unit". This is an actual quote from the codex page 38.

If you feel that this does not mean "the unit he is with" then at no time does an IC give anything to a unit he is with when the rules tell you he does.

So no fearless SM squads with Chappys, eh?

Edit: again silly (Fact)

I know this isnt a faq or erratta, but it is from the GW email service:
(my email address removed, GW answers bolded)


Hello,
Answers to your questions are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com



From: *********************
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:54 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: Ork Painboy Question

Hi,

If a warboss joins a unit of nobs with a painboy in it, will the painboy confer the Feel No Pain rule to the Warboss?
Yes.

Likewise, does Mad Doc Grotsnik confer FNP to a unit he joins?
Yes, that’s what ‘Dok’s Tools’ do.


If both are right, when an IC joins a unit, he is part of that unit, so anything applied to that unit (like from wargear or special abilities) is applied to the IC, but inherent special abilities are not?
Yes, unless it states otherwise.

fraustdemon wrote:I know this isnt a faq or erratta, but it is from the GW email service:
(my email address removed, GW answers bolded)


Hello,
Answers to your questions are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060

Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com



From: *********************
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:54 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: Ork Painboy Question

Hi,

If a warboss joins a unit of nobs with a painboy in it, will the painboy confer the Feel No Pain rule to the Warboss?
Yes.

Likewise, does Mad Doc Grotsnik confer FNP to a unit he joins?
Yes, that’s what ‘Dok’s Tools’ do.


If both are right, when an IC joins a unit, he is part of that unit, so anything applied to that unit (like from wargear or special abilities) is applied to the IC, but inherent special abilities are not?
Yes, unless it states otherwise.

lol, got to love it

again this was at best a very silly argument to begin with (Fact)

frgsinwntr wrote:
Fortune is not a special rule the unit has BEFORE the character joins. It is a psychic power that affects the unit after he is part of it. This is a seperate issue and yes he benefits.

Though I've already posted above, lets apply this to the current argument against FNP working for the IC.

2 eldar units, with a farseer in each (unit A and unit B).
Unit A farseer casts fortune on unit B. By the wording of the Fortune rule: "This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes"
Farseer B wouldnt benefit because fortune doesnt say IC's benefit from the rule.

Now, using the argument that B would get the fortune because fortune wasnt there before the character joins is arguing an inherent special rule vs a granted special rule. neither of which have specific wording in the rulebook, and are the source of this confusion.

If the special rule isnt inherent (like a plague marines FNP), then it is likely applied only when applicable. Meaning a painboy applies FNP to his whole unit (including any IC's) as long as he's there, when the rule would normally apply (as in failed saves). And in the case of the quote above, when the unit fails a save and rerolls due to fortune.


than again i could be smoking something heavy and not realize it...but that's how my logic is running on this subject and I stand by it.

And on a side note. i play tyranids and necrons, and the only ork player i know is pretty spectacularly obnoxious...i'd love to make his life harder, but cant in this case.

padixon wrote:
How can you honestly not understand the words "confers Feel no Pain ability to his unit". This is an actual quote from the codex page 38.

If you feel that this does not mean "the unit he is with" then at no time does an IC give anything to a unit he is with when the rules tell you he does.

So no fearless SM squads with Chappys, eh? Page 58 space marine codex. It SAYS SPECIFICALLY he confers the ability to any unit he joins. SILLY is not reading the rules before posting something and trying to call my argument "silly" to win over people. Again this is an intelligent debate. I will refrain from calling names. If you can't, please stop posting things where you call things "silly "

Edit: again silly (Fact) FACT: you haven't provided a rules page to my question.

@padixon YOU are right! the unit does gain feel no pain! BUT! the warboss is not in the unit :( he joins it later. When he joins it the unit has a special rule correct? this special rule is FNP. according to the core rule book, unless the doc tools say it is confered to any ICs that join that IC does not gain the ability.

@fraustdemon
I can easily write something like that also. It has already been shown that when you write GW you get 10 different answers to 10 different questions. I called GW glen burnie last night and talked to Mike there and he agreed with my interpretation. 410 590 8675.
EDIT: I Just called. Jon spencer was not in so I talked to Eric. Eric agreed with my interpretation. The point is you can't go by this you need to provide a rules page where it SPECIFICALLY says that ICs that join the unit gain the ability

my point is UNLESS you can reference where it SPECIFICALLY says that ICs that join the unit gain the ability. They don't get it.

The Rules in the core rule book are very clear on this. If you reference the asterisk thing, scroll back and read my previous responses to that. I have highlighted this to make it clear. Please email him again as I am going to be sure to talk to him.

Also @ fraustdemon fortune is not a USR or a special rule for a given model and is not in question here. It works. If you want to start a thread on this go right ahead.

I'm just glad this is over

yes. It is over. Until a page where it SPECIFICALLY says that ICs that join the unit gain the ability can be found.

Read page 48 of the rulebook under "special rules". An IC who joins a unit does not confer the rule upon the unit, and vice-versa unless the rule specifies otherwise.

Nobs do not confer their ability to the boss. They Keep FNP but the boss does not get it.

frgsinwntr wrote:@padixon YOU are right! the unit does gain feel no pain! BUT! the warboss is not in the unit :( he joins it later. When he joins it the unit has a special rule correct? this special rule is FNP. according to the core rule book, unless the doc tools say it is confered to any ICs that join that IC does not gain the ability.

@fraustdemon
I can easily write something like that also. It has already been shown that when you write GW you get 10 different answers to 10 different questions. I called GW glen burnie last night and talked to Mike there and he agreed with my interpretation. 410 590 8675.

my point is UNLESS you can reference where it SPECIFICALLY says that ICs that join the unit gain the ability. They don't get it.

The Rules in the core rule book are very clear on this. If you reference the asterisk thing, scroll back and read my previous responses to that. I have highlighted this to make it clear. Please email him again as I am going to be sure to talk to him.

Also @ fraustdemon fortune is not a USR or a special rule for a given model and is not in question here. It works. If you want to start a thread on this go right ahead.

Listen, you are truly reading the rules right. Just applying them harsher than what GW intended (yes this in an opinion). Please read below for an explanation:

But there is a difference to a units innate ability (plague marines) and ones where they specifically apply to a "unit". As John has already pointed out (with the "Dok's Tools" are for quote). In which the dok's tools say "confers the FnP ability to his unit".

I honestly believe this all stems from the line "Unless specified in the rule itself..." You, Yakface, and some others believe this is to imply that any special rule *has* to say that it includes ICs in the rule itself.

When myself and others (to include John Spencer) see this as saying that any rule that apply the word "unit he is with" or any other variation of it, do include any attached characters sense they form 1 unit at any point they are attached.

IMHO, this will never get resolved (both sides agreeing on something) because of this different understanding of that one line.

@padixon

My point now that with the interpreting of the rules in this fashion it opens up things for a lot of abuse.

2 Examples:
1) There is an IC in the new marine dex that gives things scout yet he himself does not have scout. Should he gain it by joining a unit that does? Rules wise no he shouldn't.

2) A IC joining A snikrot unit can Ambush :(. This is just beardy but will be done if the rules are not followed to the word...

I don't really see this as "being harsh." More strictly going by the rules yes, but not harsh. But when you show up at a national tournament you will need to know the rules as written since you can't go by "my store interprets it this way" kind of arguments.

padixon wrote:
I honestly believe this all stems from the line "Unless specified in the rule itself..." You, Yakface, and some others believe this is to imply that any special rule *has* to say that it includes ICs in the rule itself.

This is true and the rule does have to say it.

padixon wrote:
IMHO, this will never get resolved (both sides agreeing on something) because of this different understanding of that one line.

Until it is FaQed which if it is done to either interpretation I will agree to and play with.

frgsinwntr wrote:
my point is UNLESS you can reference where it SPECIFICALLY says that ICs that join the unit gain the ability. They don't get it.

The Rules in the core rule book are very clear on this. If you reference the asterisk thing, scroll back and read my previous responses to that. I have highlighted this to make it clear. Please email him again as I am going to be sure to talk to him.

Also @ fraustdemon fortune is not a USR or a special rule for a given model and is not in question here. It works. If you want to start a thread on this go right ahead.

I understand the "*" meaning. Never an issue for me.

Pg 48: "...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

The rule says nothing at all about abilities. It says Special Rules.

The ork unit does not have the special rule FNP. The Painboy is actively conferring it to whatever unit he is in, but it's not the unit's special rules. Yes, it's a universal special rule, but not the unit's special rule.

I'm looking in the Nobz entry in the Ork Codex. I dont see FNP under the Special Rules section. therefore FNP is not a special rule for the unit. Their special rules are Furious Charge, Mob Rule, Waagh!.

fraustdemon wrote:
I understand the "*" meaning. Never an issue for me.

Pg 48: "...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

The rule says nothing at all about abilities. It says Special Rules.

You just rolled a

The docs tools say FNP ability. You do not have a FNP ability in your codex. There is no FNP ability in the core rules.

therefore nothing in the ork codex gets FNP. Unless of course can you provide me a page where there is a FNP ability description (read: not the FNP USR) since I have missed it?

I can play the word smithing game too. However this is not the point

frgsinwntr wrote:
The docs tools say FNP ability. You do not have a FNP ability in your codex. There is no FNP ability in the core rules.

therefore nothing in the ork codex gets FNP. can you provide me a page where there is a FNP ability description (read: not the FNP USR) since I have missed it?

I can play the word smithing game too. However this is not the point

I agree it's not the point. the point is it's not in the unit's special rules. the painboy is actively confering it to whatever unit he is in.

confering what? if its not the USR they aren't confering anything.

The rules for this are very clear.

The rules DO NOT mention where the rule comes from, only that the IC that joins a unit that has a USR (regardless of what provides the special rule) does not benefit from the special rule. UNLESS the rule SPECIFICALLY says so.

You have not provided me with a rules reference and your argument is getting weaker. Please don't waste any more of my time until there is a rules reference page that is specific

It's a USR, I'll agree to that all day long. However, it's not one of the unit's special rules.

then the unit does not have it.

You either have it or you don't.

Can you provide me with an example where a unit benefits from a USR and does not have the USR? Can you also give me a rules reason with page references as to why they would benefit?

I don't think you can...

fraustdemon wrote:It's a USR, I'll agree to that all day long. However, it's not one of the unit's special rules.

AND

fraustdemon wrote:
fraustdemon wrote:
I understand the "*" meaning. Never an issue for me.

Pg 48: "...the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

The rule says nothing at all about abilities. It says Special Rules.

WTF? you flip flopper! Pick an argument already! LOL!

Sorry thought this discussion needed to be a little more "light" so I added some humor

I agree with you on the FNP thing but dont get Snikkrot wrong there frgsinwntr.
Snikkrots Mob has a Ork Dex rule of infiltration. Read page 62 of the Ork Dex. So it seems to be possible to attach an IC to Snikkrots Mob and use his "ambush" special rule. That´s cheesy but even more cheesy would be the Zagstruk thing. Page 63. Zagstruk has a special kind of Deepstrike. So - following your point and I agree with you there - you are able to attach an IC lets say Ghazzie to make it really lame and gak.ty to Zagstruks Mob and deepstrike them. I´m pretty sure that´s not intended but because both Leaders have a Ork only special rule they provide it to any IC joining their mob correct? In the end codex > BGB and both special rules are dex only rules. Lame but possible it seems.

My apologies for not wording it consistantly. I'll try to do better in the future. Humor is fine, I dont mind, I'm not taking this terribly seriously, just a bit of distraction at work.

However, the tyranid biomorph scuttlers says: "Tyranids with the Scuttlers biomorph may Scout as described..."'
Whereas the feeder tendrils entry says: "A creature with feeder tendrils always counts as having the Preferred Enemy unit special rule."
Pages 33 and 32 respectively.

So a tyranid unit with scuttlers will not have the unit special rule scout, but have the ability to use scout. in relation to your post about having a USR but no USR. And precedence is set that if an ability is to become a units special rule then it will say it does (a matter of the game being permissive, it's not that way unless it says it is).


::edit::
My shift is over, I'll see you guys online tomorrow. Thanks for the entertaining discussion.

DaDok wrote:I agree with you on the FNP thing but dont get Snikkrot wrong there frgsinwntr.
Snikkrots Mob has a Ork Dex rule of infiltration. Read page 62 of the Ork Dex. So it seems to be possible to attach an IC to Snikkrots Mob and use his "ambush" special rule. That´s cheesy but even more cheesy would be the Zagstruk thing. Page 63. Zagstruk has a special kind of Deepstrike. So - following your point and I agree with you there - you are able to attach an IC lets say Ghazzie to make it really lame and gak.ty to Zagstruks Mob and deepstrike them. I´m pretty sure that´s not intended but because both Leaders have a Ork only special rule they provide it to any IC joining their mob correct? In the end codex > BGB and both special rules are dex only rules. Lame but possible it seems.

omg thats scarey :(

fraustdemon wrote: My apologies for not wording it consistantly. I'll try to do better in the future. Humor is fine, I dont mind, I'm not taking this terribly seriously, just a bit of distraction at work.

However, the tyranid biomorph scuttlers says: "Tyranids with the Scuttlers biomorph may Scout as described..."'
Whereas the feeder tendrils entry says: "A creature with feeder tendrils always counts as having the Preferred Enemy unit special rule."
Pages 33 and 32 respectively.

So a tyranid unit with scuttlers will not have the unit special rule scout, but have the ability to use scout. in relation to your post about having a USR but no USR. And precedence is set that if an ability is to become a units special rule then it will say it does (a matter of the game being permissive, it's not that way unless it says it is).

::edit::
My shift is over, I'll see you guys online tomorrow. Thanks for the entertaining discussion.

hmm let me read this... and respond...

You missed the as described on page 75 of the rule book. It references the USR section in the new rule book too so I don't see this as a problem.

NOW if you attached an IC to the unit he would not gain scout . In fact in this case both would lose the rule since it is marked with *. This is analogous to the nobz + warboss debate

Your comment about..

Fruastdemon - You make your points well and I wish I could annatate (Sp?) myself as well

... the SM HQ ( Cato Sicaruis) frigsinwntr surely proves the doc point. The option to give theses special rules (scouts, tankhunter, infiltrate etc) happens to one squad of tac marines which include the Cato. It will also happen to the good captain himself, As he wouldnt be able to infiltrate with as a non-infiltrator. Otherwise its foolish. So we assume he does.

It doesnt say anything about the good captain getting any kind of abilities/skills/feats/levels/FNP/USR's. Yet he has them. As do the especially trained tac squad. Because he is included with the unit. Now this will happen before the start of the game - the especially trained troopers will be phoned up etc, yes sir, to accompany the good captain.
Its all very obvious and clear cut without actually mentioning anything.

As is the Docs Tools with confer the FNP rule to the unit hes with. It mentions things, just like the above rule mentions things (which are obviously clear cut and less contented than the mad doc FNP shanannigans).

If you can target the IC when hes in the squad seperatley then fine. Wait, no? Hes part of the unit. Well then.

Broken things can come about from unique rules & funnily enough, these rules generally seem to be very similar to all these USR's that have * by thier names.

lol.. just realised that A: Cato sword is nasty, esp with a libarian w/ null zone & b: hes got FNP - thus bastardly hard.

Razerous wrote:Your comment about..

... the SM HQ ( Cato Sicaruis) frigsinwntr surely proves the doc point. The option to give theses special rules (scouts, tankhunter, infiltrate etc) happens to one squad of tac marines which include the Cato. It will also happen to the good captain himself, As he wouldnt be able to infiltrate with as a non-infiltrator. Otherwise its foolish. So we assume he does.

This shows that the Doc tools DO NOT work. Read below in orange.

It doesnt say anything about the good captain getting any kind of abilities/skills/feats/levels/FNP/USR's. Yet he has them. As do the especially trained tac squad. Because he is included with the unit. Now this will happen before the start of the game - the especially trained troopers will be phoned up etc, yes sir, to accompany the good captain.
Its all very obvious and clear cut without actually mentioning anything.


You are reading this incorrectly.

One unit in the army gains the ability, not one unit that has him joined to it. Please read it again. If he chooses to give them infiltrate, since he does not have infiltrate, and then joins this unit, both lose it. End of story. This is clear and is the perfect case for the * part of the rules people referenced earlier. It is a case where both would lose the ability. THEREFORE you do not join him to the unit so they can still infiltrate

As is the Docs Tools with confer the FNP rule to the unit hes with. It mentions things, just like the above rule mentions things (which are obviously clear cut and less contented than the mad doc FNP shanannigans).

Until you can reference a rules page...

If you can target the IC when hes in the squad seperatley then fine. Wait, no? Hes part of the unit. Well then.

Maybe you are having trouble reading the IC joining a unit with special rules part. the page has been referenced many times. It doesn't matter if he is part of the unit or not after he joins. He does not benefit from the special rules after he is part of it. Your point is not valid here as this does not address the core issue of whether or not he gains the ability of the unit which is ONLY given to the IC that joins if the rule specifically says so. No matter how you read it, the Docs tools do not say that IC joining the unit benefit from the rules.

lol.. just realised that A: Cato sword is nasty, esp with a libarian w/ null zone & b: hes got FNP - thus bastardly hard.

Razerous, do you have a rules page to support your argument? If not then no matter how you cut your argument, it is incorrect. I will again reference the page on ICs joining a unit with special rules.

I just cant read that technicoloured monstrosity.

As for Cato's interpratation - its pretty damned obvious whats intended. Was also going for the fact it lent support to non-specific mention of rules.

p48 (We all know it) of the BGB. Unless specified in the rule itself (then blah blah - no rule for the IC)

(p74 as a note - Codex takes presedence & * = bad no rules for anyone dissimiliar)

P75 FNP rule bit - No * (Okay. noted) It says blah blah blah

Oh look, Ork dex (which takes presedence (see p74)) Docs tools - applies to units blah blah.

There we go, lots of p.x numbers for you. Like I said earlier, is he apart of the unit or isnt he.

I received this reply from John Spencer:
1. Does an Ork Painboy grant Feel No Pain to a Warboss that joins the Painboys unit? If so, does this apply in CC?
Yes and yes.

2. Does a Waagh! Increase the WS of a Warboss that joins a unit of Nobz with such a banner?
Yes.

This is basic common sense. Any other interpretation is RAW fundamentalism and TFG behavior.

good.. I kinda just maybe wanted to break it down to mr frgsinwntr and give him those page referances he asked about.

I know its common sense. Does Cato get an inv? hes pretty nasty.

Razerous, you are attempting to seem nonchalant in order to seem like you know what you are talking about. Take your head out of your ... ego... and read what I am saying. You are not understanding my argument and this is why you are still arguing a point that doesn't matter.

Razerous wrote:I just cant read that technicoloured monstrosity.

As for Cato's interpratation - its pretty damned obvious whats intended. Was also going for the fact it lent support to non-specific mention of rules. One could argue anything was intended. You can only defend what is written.

p48 (We all know it) of the BGB. Unless specified in the rule itself (then blah blah - no rule for the IC)

(p74 as a note - Codex takes presedence & * = bad no rules for anyone dissimiliar)

P75 FNP rule bit - No * (Okay. noted) It says blah blah blah

Oh look, Ork dex (which takes presedence (see p74)) Docs tools - applies to units blah blah.

There we go, lots of p.x numbers for you. Like I said earlier, is he apart of the unit or isnt he.

NO.

1) you have have a unit with a special rule.
2) you are joining a IC to this unit.
3) the codex does not say anything about the rules for joining the warboss to the unit. you reference IC rules for this. IC rules say he does not get the rules
4) you double check the * thing and find that there is no *. This means that the ability is still given to the Unit not the IC.

He is part of the unit, but the IC rules state he does not benefit from the rules. I am not arguing the fact he is in the unit. The rules for IC joining the unit state that unless it is specifically mentioned that an IC gains the rules he does not get them. I am waiting for the rules reference which specifically states he receives the benefit. Yes you have mentioned many times that the unit gains FNP but this is not the argument. Please read what I am saying below.

Unless you can give me a rules page where it says that the boss specifically gets the benefit he does not. None of these pages say "the ability is confered to ICs that join this unit."

Razerous wrote:good.. I kinda just maybe wanted to break it down to mr frgsinwntr and give him those page referances he asked about.

I know its common sense. Does Cato get an inv? hes pretty nasty.

This is off topic. Please stay on topic

TO BE CLEAR You have not referenced a single page where it says that the FNP is confered to an IC that joins the unit.

You have however restated over an over again that the unit receives FNP and the docs tools rules. You do not understand my argument.

I am saying that according to the rules an IC that joins a unit, regardless of the fact he is part of that unit or not (this argument does not matter), DOES NOT benefit from the special rules of the unit he joins.

I know you want the boss to get FNP, It would be nice. I have a nob biker army myself. But this is not the case.

olympia wrote:I received this reply from John Spencer:
1. Does an Ork Painboy grant Feel No Pain to a Warboss that joins the Painboys unit? If so, does this apply in CC?
Yes and yes.

2. Does a Waagh! Increase the WS of a Warboss that joins a unit of Nobz with such a banner?
Yes.

This is basic common sense. Any other interpretation is RAW fundamentalism and TFG behavior.

Olympia

1) NO it does not. I called the GW glen burnie battle bunker and got the exact opposite answer. I referenced 2 names. Both gave the same answer as I am giving. I included the number in an above post.

2) yes, the waaagh banner does give the WS RAW because of the wording. It references MOB which is different then a UNIT. These two words are not interchangable.

Sorry Double post

lol waffles - triple post.

My gripe with the rules ends at your 3rd point.

Im pretty happy with the wording of that IC specail rules bit.

Im also pretty happy with the ork dex specificing what it does.

Because im pretty happy that the warboss counts as part of the unit.

There isnt a page where it says what youve asked for. You need to read the IC rules, then the USR bit.. then go onto the dex. its a linear progression where you retain information from all three steps to come up with a conclusion. Its pretty simple.

btw, if you were to add in a number (lets say 2.b) inbetween ur point 2 and 3.. it could read : 2.b) you have have a unit with a special rule. (Copy pasted)

I can see you dont agree with that train of thought. Cool. I dont own ne orks nor plan to get any FYI. I want 6 ironclads (see army lists)

/Fin

Then you should write to GW and tell them you think IC should gain the benefits of the units they join.

Yes I am also happy with they way the rules are written. ICs that are part (read: joined with) of a unit with special rules do not benefit from the special rules unless the rule specifically permits them to. This is all on one page. In one paragraph. No retention of information is necessary.

Unfortunately because they do not, until it is FAQed the warboss will not gain the benefits. This rule is put in place here to stop abuse and in this case, while it may not be abuse, you have to abide by the rules.

Example of needing to abide by the rules when it doesn't make sense.
Deep striking units take dangerous terrain tests when DSing into difficult ground...
Lictors can only DS into difficult ground that is area terrain.
Lictors always make dangerous terrain tests when they enter play.

It may not make sense. But you need to play by the rules.

Edit: I did not waffle, you didn't understand my argument the first time so it needed to be revised so you could. It still remains the same.

One of those times where I'm not even going to read 5 pages of back and forth arguments.

We'll just be playing it the way we always have, and let SM captains and Warbosses benefit from those rules. Advantage of owning the 'house' and being able to write the 'house rules'.

I think one of the main components of RAW is that we first all agree to use it. And I never have. I notice when the RAW crowd starts dominating the store, many other players leave, and don't come back.

Carry on though, I bet you can get 12 pages out of this one.)

lol waffles is just a term I use because its random (enough to be funny etc) and your waffle man reminded me of the saying..

I was lol'in to ur triple post apologising for the double post. Chill

Im not sure the word permits is in there. Specified in the rule itself < Is. The ork doc tools rule does specify.

I havent got the nid codex to hand to I cant comment/check

It doesnt need to not make sense, (although are you sure its got exemptions to difficult terrain tests.. flesh hooks maybe?) dangerous methods of infiltration and deep striking may incour wounds in transit to said location. I can dig that. You do need to play by the rules I agree, Why should I write to GW? Im quite happy understanding the rules as I do.

To quote (Youve been doing it loads)

Specified in the rule itself < Is. The ork doc tools rule does specify.

Like I said. /Fin

This is how I look at it in a simplified manner

A=B
B=C
Then, A=C

IC=Unit
Dok's Tools=works for Unit he is with
Then Dok's Tools=Works for Unit (IC) he is with

Also lets have some fun with the nay-sayer logic

Lets say a Chappy and a Captain went for a walk together down the board.

They are within 2" and holding hands

Chappy rules say "Honour of the Chapter: A Chaplain utterly embodies the honour of the Chapter. He, and all members of a squad he has joined, are fearless, as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rule book."

Fearless from the Warhammer 40,000 rule book: "Fearless troops automatically pass all morale and pinning tests they are required to take, and will never fall back. They can however go to ground voluntarily. 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. If a unit is falling back suddenly gains the rule, it will automatically regroup at the beginning of its next movement phase, regardless of all normal restrictions on regrouping."

Now for the fun part.

1) Going by the nay-sayers argument: Chappy cannot pass Fearless to any IC because it is a special USR rule.

2) Both are IC, so going by the logic from (1. See above) then when an IC joins a unit that is not fearless (chappy [fearless] to a captain [not-fearless]) he (chappy) would lose fearlessness, OR going by the other part of the same rule would he instead an IC (captain) join a fearless unit (chappy) then *gain* fearless per the rule. Which one is it?

This conundrum comes from this logic that abilities meant to work with other units cannot work with ICs.

See what you did there guys, we just created a conundrum with this line of thinking. Good job (being funny here)

The flaw in your argument is that a Chaplain is not fearless, he has a special rule that grants him and any unit he joins that ability.

Yes, but does he's rule make him fearless? Yes

going by the nay sayer argument, he cannot grant fearless to an IC.

So the argument is not flawed, try to keep up.

padixon wrote:Yes, but does he's rule make him fearless? Yes

going by the nay sayer argument, he cannot grant fearless to an IC.

So the argument is not flawed, try to keep up.

AND

Now for the fun part.

1) Going by the nay-sayers argument: Chappy cannot pass Fearless to any IC because it is a special USR rule.

2) Both are IC, so going by the logic from (1. See above) then when an IC joins a unit that is not fearless (chappy [fearless] to a captain [not-fearless]) he (chappy) would lose fearlessness, OR going by the other part of the same rule would he instead an IC (captain) join a fearless unit (chappy) then *gain* fearless per the rule. Which one is it?

2 ICs can not join together to be a unit. This is against the rules. If the chappy joins a unit that is not fearless it becomes fearless. If there is an IC attached to the unit that is not fearless and then the chappy joins, then by the rules for fearless, the squad gains fearless then loses fearless since not all members of the squad have it. This is clear in the rules.

This conundrum comes from this logic that abilities meant to work with other units cannot work with ICs.

See what you did there guys, we just created a conundrum with this line of thinking. Good job (being funny here)

1) Is a warboss an IC
YES

2) Is he joining a unit with special rules?
YES

3) Do the rules for an IC joining a unit with special rules say he can benefit?
NO

This is clear Padixon. Even if he is part of the unit the rules for IC joining units say the units special rule needs to say "a IC joined to this unit does not gain the rule"

You are arguing that an IC is part of the unit, I am not disagreeing I am simply pointing out that regardless of the fact he is part of the unit, the rules for IC say he does not get the special rule the unit poses.

The IC rules never mention where the USR comes from as mattering, they just simply have it and can't give it to the boss.

Yes a chaplain grants fearless. His rules say he and the squad he has joined are fearless. Yes if an IC then joins the unit they are no longer fearless. These are all the rules.

Padixon, the same point is being made here. UNLESS you can find a rules page in the ork codex where it says specifically that the IC joined to the squad benefits from the rule, he does not benefit. Yes the squad has FNP, but the IC joined to it does not. This is what the IC rules state.

Razerous wrote:
Im not sure the word permits is in there. Specified in the rule itself < Is. The ork doc tools rule does specify.

I havent got the nid codex to hand to I cant comment/check

It doesnt need to not make sense, (although are you sure its got exemptions to difficult terrain tests.. flesh hooks maybe?) dangerous methods of infiltration and deep striking may incour wounds in transit to said location. I can dig that. You do need to play by the rules I agree, Why should I write to GW? Im quite happy understanding the rules as I do. Yes, ignorance is bliss .

To quote (Youve been doing it loads) yes, when arguing a point with multiple posters this is neccessary

Specified in the rule itself < Is. The ork doc tools rule does specify.

You will need to clarify this for me since I do not understand what you mean by this. Are you saying the Docs tools do say that the IC can benefit? If you are you are reading a different version of the codex then I am. The Docs tools make no mention of an IC that joins the unit. The DO say the unit gets the special rule and this is not in question. What is in question is that an IC that joins this unit with a special rule does not benefit from a squads special rule, unless it speciffically says so.

Modquisition on:
-This is a reminder gentlemen, to be civil and argue the points of the discussion.

Modquisition off.

I will do my best to keep it civil Frazzled but you may have to visit this thread more often now

2 ICs can not join together to be a unit. This is against the rules. If the chappy joins a unit that is not fearless it becomes fearless. If there is an IC attached to the unit that is not fearless and then the chappy joins, then by the rules for fearless, the squad gains fearless then loses fearless since not all members of the squad have it. This is clear in the rules

This here my friend is where you are mistaken, they sure can.

BRB pg. 48 first paragraph "...They can join other independent characters though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

this is new to 5th, hence the conundrum.

Please re-read the conundrum and see if we can figure out how that would work going by your interpretation of the rule.

To re-hash as simple as I can:

Fearless "...This special rule is gained by any IC joining a fearless unit".

Ok so a Captain (IC not fearless) joins a Chaplain ( IC fearless) gains fearless.

Fearless later on in the same paragraph "...However, as long as a fearless character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he losses this special rule."

Ok, so a Chaplain (IC Fearless) is joined with a non fearless unit (Captain IC not fearless) so he losses fearless.

See the conundrum.

Facts to note: IC are units in and of themselves. BRB pg. 3 "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can 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'

So, a IC is a unit.

But if you (proverbial you, not 'you') want to argue this further than in annihilation games, IC would not count because only enemy 'units' can give 1 kill point (pg. 91 lower left hand corner in the little box)

So IC are units.


You all know my stance I say ICs are units, so anything that says 'unit' in it are also referring to ICs without ever 'having' to say the words "Independent characters", and in such complying with the rule "unless specified in the rule itself..." as the word "unit" referring to GW own definition of unit does indeed imply ICs.

Sense A=B, B=C, then A=C.

EDIT: It must be know, to those that don't have the SM book, the Chaplain passes fearless to the 'squad' he is with. I am using the nay sayers version of their interpretation to represent the inability of the Chaplain to pass fearless to the poor captain.

The manager at my local store (not a red-shirt) said that both, an IC in a unit with a Dok as well as a mob lead by Grotsnik would get the FNP roll.

Again, we fall back to your 3rd point (this time to padixon)

3) Do the rules for an IC joining a unit with special rules say he can benefit?
NO

Yes yes yes yes yes YES YES yes & no.. I mean yes. (BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY STATES SO)

The rules.

Look at the mad-doc entry.

What do they say.

There.. whatever they say (I shant quote as I cant remember) its enough. There it is. Its enough. You dont think its enough? I do.

Its there, in that ork codex. Everything else possibly being messed up can be messed up (So dont try and bring in other examples to reinforce your point as thier generally a bit sketchy neways.. fleshhooks for the lictors (Or its okay to get wounds deepstriking like that), Cato - it again says in the rules how things are done, quite clearly)

There is and will never be a referance which states what you want it to state. It doesnt exisit and most importantly of all, it doesnt need to exisit.

/Fin

frgsinwntr wrote:
hmm let me read this... and respond...

You missed the as described on page 75 of the rule book. It references the USR section in the new rule book too so I don't see this as a problem.

NOW if you attached an IC to the unit he would not gain scout . In fact in this case both would lose the rule since it is marked with *. This is analogous to the nobz + warboss debate

Since the information in red didnt lend anything of value to the discussion, I omitted it.

You asked to see something that granted a usr but didnt have the usr, and i provided. However, my argument still stands.

The units have a special rules section in their entries. These are the unit's special rules. Unless the painboyz dok tools entry says it adds FNP to the units special rules (similar to feeder tendrils), it doesnt. So it's not one of the unit's special rules.

Its not even in the special rules section of the Painboy's entry, it's referenced in the wargear section.

And to add to the above line. If it were in the Special Rules section of the painboy's entry, it wouldnt confer FNP to the IC.

I'll rehash: The special rules in the Nobz unit entry are: Furious Charge, Mob Rule, and Waaagh!. So if an IC joined the unit and it didnt have these, it wouldnt get these. But since Doks Tools are a piece of wargear (different section from special rules), and the wording says it confers FNP to the unit, the IC would get it.

Using the Chaplain example, his special rules doesnt include fearless, it includes Honour of the chapter (yes it is worded that it grants fearless to himself and any unit he has joined, but is not fearless under his special rules). If it merely said fearless in his SR section he wouldnt grant it to the unit he joins. Why? because it's in his special rules section. If he had a piece of wargear that said the chaplains unit has fearless, it's not in his special rules and would grant it to whatever unit he joined.


Thus:
This utilizes the rule on pg 48 saying a unit doesnt share it's special rules, utilizes the special rules entry for the unit, and utilizes any other rules (wargear) that may come into effect not covered under the special rules entry for the unit.


Regardless, this is how I'll see it until GW rules on it officially. Good points though frgsinwntr, i'll check back later to see how things are going in here.

gotta go get me some waffles.

what is the exact wording in the ork dex regarding the pain boy, and his tools??

Razerous wrote:Again, we fall back to your 3rd point (this time to padixon)

3) Do the rules for an IC joining a unit with special rules say he can benefit?
NO

Yes yes yes yes yes YES YES yes & no.. I mean yes. (BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY STATES SO)

The rules.

Look at the mad-doc entry.

What do they say.

There.. whatever they say (I shant quote as I cant remember) its enough. There it is. Its enough. You dont think its enough? I do.

Its there, in that ork codex. Everything else possibly being messed up can be messed up (So dont try and bring in other examples to reinforce your point as thier generally a bit sketchy neways.. fleshhooks for the lictors (Or its okay to get wounds deepstriking like that), Cato - it again says in the rules how things are done, quite clearly)

There is and will never be a referance which states what you want it to state. It doesnt exisit and most importantly of all, it doesnt need to exisit.

/Fin

dude, lol, never argued against it and totally agree.

like I said just a few posts up, if an IC is a unit than something that effects "units" (i.e. dok's tools) also affect the IC. here is a quote from me

Facts to note: IC are units in and of themselves. BRB pg. 3 "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can 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'

So, a IC is a unit.

But if you (proverbial you, not 'you') want to argue this further than in annihilation games, IC would not count because only enemy 'units' can give 1 kill point (pg. 91 lower left hand corner in the little box)

So IC are units.


You all know my stance I say ICs are units, so anything that says 'unit' in it are also referring to ICs without ever 'having' to say the words "Independent characters", and in such complying with the rule "unless specified in the rule itself..." as the word "unit" referring to GW own definition of unit does indeed imply ICs.

Sense A=B, B=C, then A=C.

EDIT: pg 38. Ork codex for Dok's tools under heading Wargear: "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."

When I initially read the rules, my impression was that doc's tools grant FNP to an attached IC and that an IC with those tools granted FNP to a unit he was attached to. My gut feeling is that is what was intended.

However, a literal reading of the RAW prohibits this. When playing friendlies you should have no problem with the first interpretation. However, you may need to iron this out beforehand in other situations...

Thank you Utan.

The other 4 posters are not reading the rules they are going with what they feel is intended.

I will not argue the point with them any longer as they have no provided me with a rules reference in the doc tools that says "Independent characters joined to this unit benefit from FNP"

When they provide me with this rules reference page I will accept it.

According to the IC joining a unit rules the Doc tools would need to say this. And they do not.

Being that they can only say doc tools give the FNP to a unit which is not being argued.

The only mis conception I can come up with is the fact that they are ignoring the fact that the IC is still an IC while part of the unit. He never loses his IC status. The only time this would be true is if the unit were a retinue.

I will not accept the "but doc tools say the unit gets it!" since you're not dealing with the unit you are dealing with a specific situation when a IC JOINS the unit that has the special rules.

Envy89 wrote:what is the exact wording in the ork dex regarding the pain boy, and his tools??

ten words

The pain boy confers feel no pain to his unit.

Since this is not being argued I don't understand why they keep referencing it.

I received this reply from John Spencer:

1. Does an Ork Painboy grant Feel No Pain to a Warboss that joins the Painboys unit? If so, does this apply in CC?
Yes and yes.

2. Does a Waagh! Increase the WS of a Warboss that joins a unit of Nobz with such a banner?
Yes.

This is basic common sense. Any other interpretation is RAW extremism (take that stuff back to the CSM stronghold from which it spawned) and TFG behavior.

olympia wrote:I received this reply from John Spencer:

1. Does an Ork Painboy grant Feel No Pain to a Warboss that joins the Painboys unit? If so, does this apply in CC?
Yes and yes.

2. Does a Waagh! Increase the WS of a Warboss that joins a unit of Nobz with such a banner?
Yes.

This is basic common sense. Any other interpretation is RAW extremism (take that stuff back to the CSM stronghold from which it spawned) and TFG behavior.

And I recieved the exact opposite response from the same place.

Olympia, you are not arguing the rule. Provide me with a rules page where it says the docs tools give ICs that join the unit the USR.

Frig,
I talked to the GW store today. They said they defer to Mr. Spencer on all rules questions. They also suggested that to avoid confusion in the future you should just pose a question to them rather than offer your interpretation. It seems that the answer you received was mistakenly thought to refer to the '*' rule.

Hey padixon - I was refering to Frgsinwntr's 3rd point, that was addressed to you, rather than directing all that jazz at you directly.

My bad.

Frgsinwntr - looks like your on the loosing side of this argument..


All you and I disagree on is the application of the word 'specified'

In the : Unless specificed in the rule itself

Normally on such a simple disagreement, Id flip a coin each time & go with that but as its quite plainly - from multiple sources - the way it is & that all these counter rebuttals that have been brought into it are basically irrelivant.

So, im afraid (I do like a good arguement, but this ones done)

/fin

I know both sides would like to be right but seriously, how many people actually field the mad doc?

And with any other rules dispute that has no "official" answer why can't you just bring it up at the start of the game and if the other guy doesn't see it that way then role a d6?

asugradinwa wrote:I know both sides would like to be right but seriously, how many people actually field the mad doc?

And with any other rules dispute that has no "official" answer why can't you just bring it up at the start of the game and if the other guy doesn't see it that way then role a d6?

It's not just about the doc because both Mad Doc Grotsnik and the Painboy provide FNP to their unit with the same piece of wargear: Dok's Tools.

And any Space Marine Command Squad would like to know if their Apothecary can provide emergency surgery to the Chapter's greatest heroes or not. My local group will probably all agree on "the unit" in this case including any IC that joined it. After all he could be off doing something nasty somewhere else, and he risks running off the board with a falling-back squad.

Spetulhu wrote:And any Space Marine Command Squad would like to know if their Apothecary can provide emergency surgery to the Chapter's greatest heroes or not. My local group will probably all agree on "the unit" in this case including any IC that joined it. After all he could be off doing something nasty somewhere else, and he risks running off the board with a falling-back squad.

Well, look at the specific rules text for the narcethium (p. 55): "As long as the apothecary is alive, all models in the squad have the Feel No Pain universal special rule." This rule specifically notes that all models in the unit have the USR, NOT that the unit itself has the USR. If the independent character joined a unit that had Feel No Pain, he would not have the USR; however, the Apothecary's narcethium rule is different from "the command squad has feel no pain." However, since independent characters who have joined units count as members of those units, the Apothecary's narcethium rule still grants them Feel No Pain.

Fetterkey wrote:
Well, look at the specific rules text for the narcethium (p. 55): "As long as the apothecary is alive, all models in the squad have the Feel No Pain universal special rule." This rule specifically notes that all models in the unit have the USR, NOT that the unit itself has the USR. If the independent character joined a unit that had Feel No Pain, he would not have the USR; however, the Apothecary's narcethium rule is different from "the command squad has feel no pain." However, since independent characters who have joined units count as members of those units, the Apothecary's narcethium rule still grants them Feel No Pain.

Now you are playing the semantics game.

Pg 3. 5th edition rule book definition of the word 'unit'

"A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group..." it then goes on to explain that units can also be vehicles, MC, lone heroes and stuff.

So how can "members of a squad" apply to ICs when "several models that fight as a group" not?

Is not an IC part of a group fighting with them as he is also a member of a squad he joins?

Things to ponder

Edit, I'm NOT disagreeing with you brother,in fact I agree, just using your line to introduce a line of thinking I think some people are missing.

I hate to double post, but there are people who can't wrap their minds around that:

1) IC are units as defined on pg. 3 BRB

2) the definition of the word 'unit' does not preclude any attached ICs, and in fact says a 'unit' by definition is several modes that fight as a group. Is not an IC part of the group or not?

3) the words "Unless specified by the rule itself..." does not say anywhere that it *has* to say the words IC anywhere in it. Just simply RAW that the rule has to say it works for more than the model carrying it and that it must specify whom it works for.
a) And the painboy's dok's tools say they give FNP to his unit.
b) Note the word unit used in the definition of painboy.

4) So, how does this not work for ICs?

FACTS

IC are units
Dok's tools give FNP to his unit
Units are several models that fight as a 'group'
ICs join other squads, mobs, units (whatever word your codex uses) and are part of that 'group'

Where in the 5th edition rulebook does it say they are not part of the group/unit/squad/whatever when they join.

I can point to several references that say they are:

pg. 49 under ICs and shooting second sentence.
pg. 49 second paragraph, stating if he is not with a unit then he is treated as a separate 'unit'
pg. 49 (again) this time when assaulting second paragraph, in short "...as it is part of the 'unit'"

In fact the only time it distinguishes them as a separate unit is when working out kill points/victory points and when fighting in CC as he is a 'hero'.

You guys need to drop the "unit" semantics and just read the page 48 of the big rulebook.

Its been quoted to you, for posterity, here it is again.

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specific 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining a unit. For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate."


As you said yourself, the pain boys Dok Tools say that he grants his unit FNP.

What does "his unit" mean? It means the unit he was bought for. Nobs have the FNP rule now.

The IC does not get FNP, because as is bolded above, "the units special rules are not conferred upon the character"

You also seem to be sticking to some argument of "but what you want it to say it never will!" in reference to the rule saying that it applies to IC's.

It does, look at the above quote with the section about being stubborn, which is also bolded, it says "unless specified in the rule itself".

the quote for the Stubborn USR:

"Stubborn resistance against impossible odds is a feature of some races. When taking morale tests, stubborn units always ignore any negative leadership modifiers. Independent characters that are stubborn confer the ability onto any unit they join."

It clearly states that it works for IC's in this case, now lets check the FNP USR as thats the one in question:

It doesn't state this. I'd type the exact quote but its a long paragraph, suffice it to say it does not say that IC's get the rule, or give it to the unit they join.

FNP IS NOT CONFERRED UPON IC'S THAT JOIN UNITS.


Edit: And the reason FNP doesn't have an asterisk is so that your entire nob squad doesn't lose he rule when the warboss joins. Not to say that he gets it. As is quoted above, it must specify that he can receive it. (and i dropped the "ever" as it seemed a bit pointless in hindsight)

The Asterisk quote:

"The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically lost by an IC joining a unit that does not have the same special rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an IC that does not have the same special rule."

targetawg wrote:
What does "his unit" mean? It means the unit he was bought for. Nobs have the FNP rule now.

Wrong. It means the unit he is with. John Spencer has answered this question. RAW extremism has led you to reject the benevolent guidance of Mr. Spencer--much as Horus rejected the Emperors. It's because of this kind of hubris that we have Chaos Space Marines.

olympia wrote:

targetawg wrote:
What does "his unit" mean? It means the unit he was bought for. Nobs have the FNP rule now.

Wrong. It means the unit he is with. John Spencer has answered this question. RAW extremism has led you to reject the benevolent guidance of Mr. Spencer--much as Horus rejected the Emperors. It's because of this kind of hubris that we have Chaos Space Marines.

Its because of this kind of reply we have pointless post bumping 10 page threads that go nowhere because people refuse to actually read rules and just have wishful thinking.

A quote that everyone who wants their warboss to get FNP and as such is ignoring the rules as they're written should read

Its nice to want things.

It means the unit he is with, yes, but as the IC rules say, he. cannot. get. rules. from. the. unit.

And this isnt raw extremeism or even RAW for gods sake. Its just reading the freaking rules that are written right in front of you. Do you think they wrote that whole spiel about IC's not getting units rules for their health? That they expected you to ignore it whenever you wanted to make your uber character more uber?

targetawg wrote:[And this isnt raw extremeism or even RAW for gods sake. Its just reading the freaking rules that are written right in front of you. Do you think they wrote that whole spiel about IC's not getting units rules for their health? That they expected you to ignore it whenever you wanted to make your uber character more uber?

A character attached to a unit is also more vulnerable. Our resident Dark Eldar player refuses to let his ICs take a retinue after seeing all too many get chased off the board, for example. While one might be RAW about Painboyz (and Apothecaries) it's also a dangerous drawback to have your 200+ point IC in a squad with some base line scum.

Spetulhu wrote:

targetawg wrote:[And this isnt raw extremeism or even RAW for gods sake. Its just reading the freaking rules that are written right in front of you. Do you think they wrote that whole spiel about IC's not getting units rules for their health? That they expected you to ignore it whenever you wanted to make your uber character more uber?

A character attached to a unit is also more vulnerable. Our resident Dark Eldar player refuses to let his ICs take a retinue after seeing all too many get chased off the board, for example. While one might be RAW about Painboyz (and Apothecaries) it's also a dangerous drawback to have your 200+ point IC in a squad with some base line scum.

True, but thats life.

When we all bought this game and the rules for it, we agreed to play by them. Unless as Mikhalia said its your shop/house/etc., play it as they wrote it. They clearly wrote it to prevent IC's from getting the units buffs, end of story.

The true "RAW" abusers in this thread can be seen by the ones who start grasping at bits of the english language and semantics. The rest of us just have decent reading comprehension skills and play it as it should be.

Thanks target for posting the rule and bolding it... I was starting to feel like I was banging my head against the wall.

I hope this clears it up for the people who are arguing

frgsinwntr wrote:Thanks target for posting the rule and bolding it... I was starting to feel like I was banging my head against the wall.

I hope this clears it up for the people who are arguing

You are wrong. Yakface, however well intentioned, is wrong. John Spencer and the legion of GW store employees (including the ones with which you claimed to have spoken), are correct in ruling the a Painboyz FNP applies to an attached IC. I hope this clears it up for you.

olympia wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Thanks target for posting the rule and bolding it... I was starting to feel like I was banging my head against the wall.

I hope this clears it up for the people who are arguing

You are wrong. Yakface, however well intentioned, is wrong. John Spencer and the legion of GW store employees (including the ones with which you claimed to have spoken), are correct in ruling the a Painboyz FNP applies to an attached IC. I hope this clears it up for you.

So basically....you make inflammatory comments...cite no rules...do nothing but troll on the internet...

And you're right?

Man I've gotta try this new aged rule arguing technique you've subscribed to...it's kind of awesome


And FYI Yakface helped write the FAQS, his ruling is a good one to take,

John spencer is...who? GW store employees typically know LESS about the rules than your average gamer as many of them don't even play. They are by no means sources of rule information or even close to be the wealths of knowledge you claim them to be. Maybe you should go over to the rumors thread and hail them with the amazing legions of GW store employees correctness while you're at it.

olympia wrote:[ John Spencer and the legion of GW store employees (including the ones with which you claimed to have spoken), are correct in ruling the a Painboyz FNP applies to an attached IC. I hope this clears it up for you.

Well, I've known GW store employees to be clueless monkeys before. And the writing really is abysmal. I've even had a teacher in English tell us how the paragraphs on Combat drugs in the Dark Eldar Codex mean a squad of wyches get the benefits of the Succubi buying drugs from the Armoury. Local GW store redshirts were of the same mind, but none of them could show us where the rules for actually using the one-person dispenser for a whole group could be found.

edit: this is different since the Deldar drug users have drugs to start with and the one-guy dispenser can kill you. They're told to roll for what mushrooms the squad has been smoking at the start of the game. Problem is the rather BAD ENGLISH description of what happens when a squad leader in a pot-head squad buys a personal dispenser.

Yes, the GW email team does appear to be run by a clueless monkey

But I don't think the DE thing is on topic ;p

olympia wrote:

targetawg wrote:
What does "his unit" mean? It means the unit he was bought for. Nobs have the FNP rule now.

Wrong. It means the unit he is with. John Spencer has answered this question. RAW extremism has led you to reject the benevolent guidance of Mr. Spencer--much as Horus rejected the Emperors. It's because of this kind of hubris that we have Chaos Space Marines.

Did you just call him a chaos space marine LOL!?

The teacher in me feels I need to post this for you....

"Something to avoid while you are trying to make a point; Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. "

Target: The nob (anything) unit does not do diddly squat. They dont give no-one nothing.

Well they give the doc & warbosss company.

The unit does not give/have/lend out/confer FNP. Why would you ever say that? Do the nobz give the warboos lascannons aswell? no. Obviously.

The doc confers FNP to the unit - He constanly keeps doing this.. and its one way. It doesnt turn the nobz into innate FNP/insta medics.

Just because the word 'unit' is included in there doesnt mean you can throw it around like cheese.


See the above underlined bit, just incase.


I keep posting here because the tules (in this case, ive seen other much more vague referances) are so blindingly obvious. The people come up with a completely crazy arguement.


Also... If I kill the Doc, the unit looses the FNP rule. The unit does loose its ability to give itself fnp. thats silly.... it never had that ability...

Razerous wrote:Target: The nob (anything) unit does not do diddly squat. They dont give no-one nothing.

Well they give the doc & warbosss company.

The unit does not give/have/lend out/confer FNP. Why would you ever say that? Do the nobz give the warboos lascannons aswell? no. Obviously.

The doc confers FNP to the unit - He constanly keeps doing this.. and its one way. It doesnt turn the nobz into innate FNP/insta medics.

Just because the word 'unit' is included in there doesnt mean you can throw it around like cheese. (... commentary LOL WUT?!


See the above underlined bit, just incase.


I keep posting here because the tules (in this case, ive seen other much more vague referances) are so blindingly obvious. The people come up with a completely crazy arguement.


Also... If I kill the Doc, the unit looses the FNP rule. The unit does loose its ability to give itself fnp. thats silly.... it never had that ability...

Just because the doc does and the unit loses FNP does not mean an IC that was in in the unit ever had it. You have only repeated the wording for docs tools which do not include any reference to an IC getting the rules as required by the BRB.

Chaos units also have an upgrade that is similiar. Icons are lost and the rule goes away. Does this mean an IC joining their unit also gains the benefit? NO it does not.

The warboss is an IC

The nobs have a special rule. It does not matter where the rule came from, only that they have it.

IF an IC joins a unit that has a special rule he does not benefit from it.

I will qoute Target as he said it best here

"You guys need to drop the "unit" semantics and just read the page 48 of the big rulebook.

Its been quoted to you, for posterity, here it is again.

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specific 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining a unit. For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate."

It does, look at the above quote with the section about being stubborn, which is also bolded, it says "unless specified in the rule itself".

the quote for the Stubborn USR:

"Stubborn resistance against impossible odds is a feature of some races. When taking morale tests, stubborn units always ignore any negative leadership modifiers. Independent characters that are stubborn confer the ability onto any unit they join."

It clearly states that it works for IC's in this case"

Thanks again targetawg

The painboy is just GWs way of letting you buy FNP for the unit, thats it.

The unit has FNP, the unit gains FNP, the pain boy gives HIS unit FNP, the pain boy is at any given time giving a fresh FNP stack, the FNP is given at every instant in time so every member of the unit always has it

It doesn't matter how you choose to rearrange the words and argue it, the fact remains, it is a rule conferred upon the unit, and:

The unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character

Now here's another thought for you, as a hypothetical:

If you were truly attempting to argue that the painboy is somehow a seperate IC conferring it upon any unit he joins, then you'd still be stuck with the issue of:

"and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

Special rules don't transfer unless the rule says it does. It's as simple as that.

@ targetawg

So you think that because the painboy is bought as an upgrade for the nobz/flashgitz, then it only applies to them.

Well, how does that logic interact with Mad Doc Grotsnik? He comes with Dok's tools, and NOT bought as an upgrade for the squad.

So, by your logic, Grotsnik only grants FNP to himself, when the rules say "for his unit".

So, you think that SM Chaplains rule effects "his squad" means it really only effects himself and not the squad he is with?

You do realize that your thinking on how this rule works *EFFECTS A LOT MORE THAN YOU REALIZE* and I guarantee you are currently playing the game against how you are posting right now?

Just think of all the games that had ICs that gave a special rule to "his unit".

This is why John Spencer, a guy GW hired to do this very job or rules 'governing', is the guy we 'have' to resort to for instances like these.

So, GW's own 'HIRED' 'Rules Governor' for rules questions has already answered this, and has ruled in favor of the less harsh reading of the rule.

So lets drop this and sorry guys, you just need to accept it.

padixon wrote:@ targetawg

So you think that because the painboy is bought as an upgrade for the nobz/flashgitz, then it only applies to them.

Well, how does that logic interact with Mad Doc Grotsnik? He comes with Dok's tools, and NOT bought as an upgrade for the squad.

So, by your logic, Grotsnik only grants FNP to himself, when the rules say "for his unit".

So, you think that SM Chaplains rule effects "his squad" means it really only effects himself and not the squad he is with?

You do realize that your thinking on how this rule works *EFFECTS A LOT MORE THAN YOU REALIZE* and I guarantee you are currently playing the game against how you are posting right now?

Just think of all the games that had ICs that gave a special rule to "his unit".

This is why John Spencer, a guy GW hired to do this very job or rules 'governing', is the guy we 'have' to resort to for instances like these.

So, GW's own 'HIRED' 'Rules Governor' for rules questions has already answered this, and has ruled in favor of the less harsh reading of the rule.

So lets drop this and sorry guys, you just need to accept it.

Yep, I´m with you here. Spencers word counts at the end of the day because he´s the official Rule Runt. Even if he´s maybe wrong, I dont care that much because there has to be one instance the players can go with. Everything else would lead into the chaos.

I did think the previous post about the Chaplain's HotC and LoB abilities was on to something but neither of them are USRs and they both specifically say "a Chaplain and all members of a squad that he has joined". So much for that argument...

I guess one of my beefs with Yak's ruling is coming from page 49 in the shooting section where it mentions "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets". How can they be part of the unit and not be included in something that effects the unit as a whole? What about leadership? When you take a test you use the highest leadership in the unit, can we then not use the leadership of an IC? The wargear says it confers FNP to the unit. A joined Warboss is part of the unit the wargear is referencing.

The USR exclusion works fine for static effects, like abilities a unit has regardless, but it doesn't really work when applied to wargear or conferred abilities.

Sadly though, to avoid an issue with RAW the Dok's Tools and Necarthium should have been worded like similar abilities on the Chaplain, Shrike, and Khan. On a side note I found it interesting that Lysander's Bolter Drill rules, though similar to the above rules, are worded in a unique, albeit trivial way.

Really though the lack of extending FNP to a joined Warboss isn't much of a loss. Nob unit's are still dead 'ard. I've been finding recently that the stuff I throw Nob units at usually don't have a chance against said Nobz and what my opponent eventually hits me with in return ignores armor saves (Chaplain led Honor Guard and monstrous Daemons) so FNP is moot.

So yeah, not thrilled with Yak's ruling but it's not something that's gonna cripple Orks in this edition.

padixon wrote:@ targetawg

So you think that because the painboy is bought as an upgrade for the nobz/flashgitz, then it only applies to them.

1) Well, how does that logic interact with Mad Doc Grotsnik? He comes with Dok's tools, and NOT bought as an upgrade for the squad.
So, by your logic, Grotsnik only grants FNP to himself, when the rules say "for his unit".

2) So, you think that SM Chaplains rule effects "his squad" means it really only effects himself and not the squad he is with?

3) You do realize that your thinking on how this rule works *EFFECTS A LOT MORE THAN YOU REALIZE* and I guarantee you are currently playing the game against how you are posting right now?

4) Just think of all the games that had ICs that gave a special rule to "his unit".

5) This is why John Spencer, a guy GW hired to do this very job or rules 'governing', is the guy we 'have' to resort to for instances like these.
So, GW's own 'HIRED' 'Rules Governor' for rules questions has already answered this, and has ruled in favor of the less harsh reading of the rule.

6) So lets drop this and sorry guys, you just need to accept it.

1) Yes, Grotsnik himself by the rules does not confer FNP to any unit he joins. Edit:Can you qoute the rule for me here word for word where it says he gives it to his unit? The only rule I see that is confered is fearless and "must move towards nearest enemy." FNP is not mentioned as being confered.

2) The chaplains rules state "specifically it effects himself AND his squad"

3) Yes it does effect a lot. It does point out a lot of things people have been doing incorrectly with out realizing it.

4) Yes its sad, but time to correct this.

5) Yes GW also hires people to edit codices before they hit the printers... look how much they miss. I am sure Jon has missed something here and I am engaging him in a back and forth email discussion now.

6) Ummm. No.

Bigmug wrote:I did think the previous post about the Chaplain's HotC and LoB abilities was on to something but neither of them are USRs and they both specifically say "a Chaplain and all members of a squad that he has joined". So much for that argument...

I guess one of my beefs with Yak's ruling is coming from page 49 in the shooting section where it mentions "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets". How can they be part of the unit and not be included in something that effects the unit as a whole? What about leadership? When you take a test you use the highest leadership in the unit, can we then not use the leadership of an IC? The wargear says it confers FNP to the unit. A joined Warboss is part of the unit the wargear is referencing.

The USR exclusion works fine for static effects, like abilities a unit has regardless, but it doesn't really work when applied to wargear or conferred abilities.

Sadly though, to avoid an issue with RAW the Dok's Tools and Necarthium should have been worded like similar abilities on the Chaplain, Shrike, and Khan. On a side note I found it interesting that Lysander's Bolter Drill rules, though similar to the above rules, are worded in a unique, albeit trivial way.

Really though the lack of extending FNP to a joined Warboss isn't much of a loss. Nob unit's are still dead 'ard. I've been finding recently that the stuff I throw Nob units at usually don't have a chance against said Nobz and what my opponent eventually hits me with in return ignores armor saves (Chaplain led Honor Guard and monstrous Daemons) so FNP is moot. I 100% agree

So yeah, not thrilled with Yak's ruling but it's not something that's gonna cripple Orks in this edition.
I'm not thrilled either by this! I play orks :( also!

Big mug, they are considered part of the unit, the rules for IC govern how the IC works while he is part of the unit. The squad itself will retain FNP but the boss will not. Please read the following rules quote:

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specific 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining a unit. For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate."

The Unit has a special rule. The warboss is an IC. When the IC joins the unit he does not get FNP even though he is part of the unit. That is exactly what the rule above is telling you.

If the FnP in these cases was actually a "unit special rule" rather than simply a "special rule granted by wargear"...wouldnt the rule be under the unit description in the Codex?

It seems to me that since the Nobs/command squad descriptions in either appropriate codex fail to include FnP as a universal special rule, they cannot be classified as "unit special rules".

1) Yes, Grotsnik himself by the rules does not confer FNP to any unit he joins. Edit:Can you qoute the rule for me here word for word where it says he gives it to his unit? The only rule I see that is confered is fearless and "must move towards nearest enemy." FNP is not mentioned as being confered.

2) The chaplains rules state "specifically it effects himself AND his squad"

Dok's tools "he confers FnP to *HIS UNIT*" (emphasis mine)
Honor of the chapter "he and all the members of the squad he joins" are fearless"

so how are "his unit" differ from "squad he joins"?

In the english language, honestly, how are these different in a normal conversation? If I get into "his car (unit/squad)" am I not joining him in his car (unit/squad)?

is not joining the same thing as being in "his (showing ownership) unit"?

my English is really bad if I am messing this up, and I will talk to my professor about this one for sure. I will be real surprised if he does say they are different.

and

5) Yes GW also hires people to edit codices before they hit the printers... look how much they miss. I am sure Jon has missed something here and I am engaging him in a back and forth email discussion now.

So by this logic, we can forgo anything we don't like or think are wrong because GW is not perfect? lol, this is laughable. If you are serious about this than you might as well just throw a monkey wrench into rules discussions because we cannot trust the source of the information. An hence all information is suspect into being wrong.

Wrong or not, He made a judgment call on his interpretation of the rule (which I might add has a vast majority of players agree) as per his 'contract' job with GW. They, again, hired him for it, and so in doing have put the onus on him for all rules queries. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that you can just ignore it.

Edit again: We might as well stop e-mailing John too while we are at it, since the nay-sayers don't seem to care what he says on the subject. Really whats the point? You get an answer, like it and say "look I was right". You get an answer, and don't like it and say "he is obviously wrong, lets ignore this one and favor all the ones I like".

Is this not what we are doing by ignoring the "rules guy". Please correct me if I'm wrong. You either differ to his judgment on ALL issues or NONE at all. Which one is it?

padixon wrote:

1) Yes, Grotsnik himself by the rules does not confer FNP to any unit he joins. Edit:Can you qoute the rule for me here word for word where it says he gives it to his unit? The only rule I see that is confered is fearless and "must move towards nearest enemy." FNP is not mentioned as being confered.

2) The chaplains rules state "specifically it effects himself AND his squad"

Dok's tools "he confers FnP to *HIS UNIT*" (emphasis mine)
Honor of the chapter "he and all the members of the squad he joins" are fearless"

so how are "his unit" differ from "squad he joins"?

In the english language, honestly, how are these different in a normal conversation? If I get into "his car (unit/squad)" am I not joining him in his car (unit/squad)?

is not joining the same thing as being in "his (showing ownership) unit"?

my English is really bad if I am messing this up, and I will talk to my professor about this one for sure. I will be real surprised if he does say they are different.

and

5) Yes GW also hires people to edit codices before they hit the printers... look how much they miss. I am sure Jon has missed something here and I am engaging him in a back and forth email discussion now.

So by this logic, we can forgo anything we don't like or think are wrong because GW is not perfect? lol, this is laughable. If you are serious about this than you might as well just throw a monkey wrench into rules discussions because we cannot trust the source of the information. An hence all information is suspect into being wrong.

Wrong or not, He made a judgment call on his interpretation of the rule (which I might add has a vast majority of players agree) as per his 'contract' job with GW. They, again, hired him for it, and so in doing have put the onus on him for all rules queries. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that you can just ignore it.

You have quoted and proved absolutely nothing, except that you can make rude remarks to other posters and argue without using logic. I'm referring to your previous "reply" to me as well.

There's no point in continuing this as I've shown you the exact rule that says he cannot benefit from unit special rules, yet you just choose to ignore it. John spencer is by no means an authority, his ruling holds 0 weight in tournaments, etc., he's just a rule boy like we had before who answers rules questions to the best of his knowledge as any of us would. His opinion carries the same weight.

If you're going to just ignore whats written in front of you saying that you don't get it, why keep arguing? You aren't going to prove a point because you don't have one, you're just choosing to play a rule incorrectly. And thats fine, if thats how you and your friend agree to it, but if you sat across from me at a tournament, you'd not be allowed to use it. If you argued it till you were blue in the face while you were obviously wrong, I'd give you a big goose egg on sportsmanship, because you're acting like a child.

Also, don't tell me I've been playing it wrong, this is the way I've played this rule since the damn 5th edition book came out. My phoenix lords confer nothing on their squads except fearless, as it says fearless gets conferred, my squads confer NOTHING on the phoenix lords/autarchs/farseers that join them, because it DOES NOT SAY THEY GET THE RULE. No matter how much I want it, I play by the rules.

You should try it.

Or you could just find another poorly worded analogy to the syntax of the "unit" sentence and act like you're proving something, again.

And for the record, I haven't once quoted John.

If you understood his position better, you'd understand why. He's a knowledgeable player that knows the rules well, just like myself, or frgs, or deadshane.

And he's just as official as we are. We don't "pick and choose" on his rulings, we simply know that he's just as fallible as we are, and as such you have to argue rules using whats written, not what an arbitrary third party who has unofficial rulings says.

There's no point in continuing this as I've shown you the exact rule that says he cannot benefit from unit special rules, yet you just choose to ignore it. John spencer is by no means an authority, his ruling holds 0 weight in tournaments, etc., he's just a rule boy like we had before who answers rules questions to the best of his knowledge as any of us would. His opinion carries the same weight.

I apologize for disagreeing with you and showing my interpretation, but I do go straight to the point faster than most people, and so seems 'mean'.

So as far as your concerned we will stop hassling John since his opinion means jack.

And he's just as official as we are.

So, you get paid by GW to make rules determinations until a FAQ comes out?

Oh an btw, all tournaments here were played with Dok's tools granting FnP to any IC in the squad and Grotsnik did in fact grant FnP to his squad since you brought up tournaments.

Edit, I may come off a bit harsh, but I always try my best to get to the root of the manner as quick as possible. If you find they are harsh, please take a step back and look at it as it is, words with a meaning that leads to a point as efficiently as possible.

Unfortunently you have 2, just as offical GW staff that offer diffrent rulings.

Also, its quite clear that there must be specified othervise if you want a USR to apply to an IC.

Gah, im sure I posted (it didnt go through)..

I reckon its a case of 'his unit' in terms of being specific or unspecific.

Because this mad doc char can only be bought as part of the nobz unit then yes, it would just be for that unit.

But - the IC doc that using docs tools (same wording?), could join a gretchin squad and confer FNP

(Again Frgwintr - im quite happy with the 'unless specificed' being addressed by the 'his unit' but with the following possibilites)

So therefor the rule must obviously use the unspecific BGB definition of the term unit. Otherwise its specific and it only applies to those nobz.

The rules are really really simple. Theres been lots of arguements* over lots of things but it does just all boil down to the above issue.

All of these arguements have basically either been shown to be wrong or shown to be irrelevant IMO.

Specific or unspecific? What else is there?

frgsinwntr wrote:

olympia wrote:I received this reply from John Spencer:

1. Does an Ork Painboy grant Feel No Pain to a Warboss that joins the Painboys unit? If so, does this apply in CC?
Yes and yes.

2. Does a Waagh! Increase the WS of a Warboss that joins a unit of Nobz with such a banner?
Yes.

This is basic common sense. Any other interpretation is RAW extremism (take that stuff back to the CSM stronghold from which it spawned) and TFG behavior.

And I recieved the exact opposite response from the same place.

Olympia, you are not arguing the rule. Provide me with a rules page where it says the docs tools give ICs that join the unit the USR.

I think this is funny. On the Deffrolla debate a dozen or so posters all emailed John Spencerand we all posted our emails. All were the same. If you did in fact go to the same source and recieved a differant answer, please post it.

Darkness wrote:

I think this is funny. On the Deffrolla debate a dozen or so posters all emailed John Spencerand we all posted our emails. All were the same. If you did in fact go to the same source and recieved a differant answer, please post it.

No, he called a random store and offered an "interpretation" with which, however it was put, an employee agreed. I called a store too. They said that they defer to Mr. Spencer on all rules questions.


It's quite simple really. Unit: "a group of models that fights together." Dok's tools: "grants FNP to his unit."

The most nonsensical assertion in this thread is that Mad Doc Grotsnik does not grant FNP to the unit he joins. Kafka would be proud--according to these folk, Dok's tools applies neither to the Doc (which I could see) nor to his unit. Of course, they cling to this RAW solipsism because they realize that if they admit Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit then a Painboy would grant FNP to an attached warboss via the same piece of wargear. As the famous Inquisitor Arthur Schopenhauer said, "RAW solipsism is an impregnable fortress but one from which the garrison can never sally forth. We can safely bypass the RAW solipsists and leave them to fester in their fortress."

I don't understand how you've got to 6 pages, there is clearly no debate here.

ICs are considered part of units they join.
The painboy abilty effects all models in their unit.
Therefore the IC is in that area of effect and gains FNP.

Just like Doc Grotsnik joining another unit (or even just another IC) and granting them feel no pain. They're all one unit therefore all within the area of effect of the doc's tools.

I think too many people seem to have got confused with different situations where its an innate abilty. If it where a rule attached to the models (like plague marines) then it would not be passed on. But thats not the case here.

Hymirl wrote:I don't understand how you've got to 6 pages, there is clearly no debate here.

ICs are considered part of units they join.
The painboy abilty effects all models in their unit.
Therefore the IC is in that area of effect and gains FNP.

Just like Doc Grotsnik joining another unit (or even just another IC) and granting them feel no pain. They're all one unit therefore all within the area of effect of the doc's tools.

I think too many people seem to have got confused with different situations where its an innate abilty. If it where a rule attached to the models (like plague marines) then it would not be passed on. But thats not the case here.

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specific 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining a unit. For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate."

This rule makes no difference between an innate and given ability. A chaos Icon grants the unit an ability also, ICs that join that unit do not benefit.

There is No debate on whether the IC is part of the unit or not. Yes they become part of the unit, but this rule qouted above for you dictates how they interact with the rules of the unit after they join the unit. Yes the Unit is granted FNP. But the joined IC is Still an IC and needs to abide by the IC rules above.

There is NO distinction in the rules that say "because its wargear we can ignore this rule." Unless you can give us the page that says this.

I know it worked differently in 4th ed. But we are playing 5th ed and need to play by 5th ed rules for ICs.

frgsinwntr wrote:"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specific 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. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joining a unit. For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate."

Feel no pain is not a unit special rule. Therefore the fact that unit speical rules are not confered to ICs has nothing to do with the situation. Had you read my post before cut and pasting an inaccurate and irrelvent responce you would have noticed that difference.

Innate and given abilities? I'm sorry, are these defined in the rules or is it a distinction you have made up?

A chaos Icon grants the unit an ability also, ICs that join that unit do not benefit.

And the reason for that is that chaos icons specificly mention that ICs do not gain the benefit. That is why they don't, thats why its different from painboys. So far you've shown nothing that contradicts any of the facts I've shown, you are wrong.

There is NO distinction in the rules that say "because its wargear we can ignore this rule." Unless you can give us the page that says this.

Ah yes, the old demand a negative trick. Nice attempt but flawed, the rules are permissive, this means instead of sitting around wanting to find the bit that says you don'tdo something (in this case a rule that says you don't follow the rule you previously quoted), you have to go and find the rule that says you can.

The fact is that the painboy's rule itself is all the exception you need, it provides an abilty to his unit, the warboss is part of his unit, its not difficult.

And thanks for reminding me that we're playing 5th edition, that was very helpful. Are you this rude to everyone who posts here or is it just me that you're suggesting hasn't read the rulebook?

Hymirl wrote:I don't understand how you've got to 6 pages, there is clearly no debate here.

ICs are considered part of units they join.
The painboy abilty effects all models in their unit.
Therefore the IC is in that area of effect and gains FNP.

Just like Doc Grotsnik joining another unit (or even just another IC) and granting them feel no pain. They're all one unit therefore all within the area of effect of the doc's tools.

I think too many people seem to have got confused with different situations where its an innate abilty. If it where a rule attached to the models (like plague marines) then it would not be passed on. But thats not the case here.

QFT

That's what I've been saying all along brother, and that this is silly, especially since it has gone for this long.

OH THIS IS AWESOME * Did some research and found the *exact* same rule in the 4th ed codex word for word.

So, 4th ed has been around for about 4 years, all the tournaments, all the FAQs and GT FAQs, all the rule easter egg hunting, and this was NEVER brought up.

Check it out for yourself, dust off that old rule book, pg. 50 (edit: I have the little rule book, and pages are numbered differently, so it is under heading "Characters")second paragraph from the end.

This was the way it was done in 4th, and 5th is *important* no different, exact same rule word-for-word.

Also, all that other stuff is also true, units are units, if a wargear/ability is applied to the unit, it is applied without exception unless specified in the rule itself (i.e. chaos icons). Simply put "for his unit" is for his unit and ICs are part of the unit.

/FIN trully

Hymirl wrote:
Ah yes, the old demand a negative trick. Nice attempt but flawed, the rules are permissive, this means instead of sitting around wanting to find the bit that says you don'tdo something (in this case a rule that says you don't follow the rule you previously quoted), you have to go and find the rule that says you can.

The fact is that the painboy's rule itself is all the exception you need, it provides an abilty to his unit, the warboss is part of his unit, its not difficult.

And thanks for reminding me that we're playing 5th edition, that was very helpful. Are you this rude to everyone who posts here or is it just me that you're suggesting hasn't read the rulebook?

Exactly, the rules are permissive. Show me where it says the IC joined to the UNit gets the ability. I have shown you where it says they DO NOT.

Edited, Decided not to stoop to a low level

padixon wrote:

Hymirl wrote:I don't understand how you've got to 6 pages, there is clearly no debate here.

ICs are considered part of units they join.
The painboy abilty effects all models in their unit.
Therefore the IC is in that area of effect and gains FNP.

Just like Doc Grotsnik joining another unit (or even just another IC) and granting them feel no pain. They're all one unit therefore all within the area of effect of the doc's tools.

I think too many people seem to have got confused with different situations where its an innate abilty. If it where a rule attached to the models (like plague marines) then it would not be passed on. But thats not the case here.

QFT

That's what I've been saying all along brother, and that this is silly, especially since it has gone for this long.

OH THIS IS AWESOME * Did some research and found the *exact* same rule in the 4th ed codex word for word.

So, 4th ed has been around for about 4 years, all the tournaments, all the FAQs and GT FAQs, all the rule easter egg hunting, and this was NEVER brought up.

Check it out for yourself, dust off that old rule book, pg. 50 (edit: I have the little rule book, and pages are numbered differently, so it is under heading "Characters")second paragraph from the end.

This was the way it was done in 4th, and 5th is *important* no different, exact same rule word-for-word.

Also, all that other stuff is also true, units are units, if a wargear/ability is applied to the unit, it is applied without exception unless specified in the rule itself (i.e. chaos icons). Simply put "for his unit" is for his unit and ICs are part of the unit.

/FIN trully

QFT & QFT

Yes. weve all been making the same, correct, point all along - with different flavours, focoues & inflections.


@ frgsinwntr: No you HAVENT shown where IC dont get the rule.

Your reaaally havent. Your agruments about that point have been refuted (and pretty well if I do say so myself) and shown to be wrong.

Why are you using the same old arguements to counter all these replies.

It talks about the STUBBORN rule. Okay. Awesome. Cool. Refer to the GOD DAMNED ork codex AFTER reading the BGB. =

As per instructions in the BGB. Cant you do that frgsinwntr? Cant you read the rulebook? Read FNP in the BGB. Then read the heading which tells you to refer to the ork dex. Then read that rule in the ork dex.

That completely and utterly destroys your amazing point where you highlight in specail colours the referance to the stubborn rule.


Please people.. read the BGB (and related dexes where nessicary) in order when you want to check the rules.

frgsinwntr wrote:Exactly, the rules are permissive. Show me where it says the IC joined to the UNit gets the ability. I have shown you where it says they DO NOT.

No, you have not shown me where it says they do not. That is a lie, and it is rude to lie to people, please don't do that again.

You have shown me is a rule that applies to unit special rules, which is not applicable to this situation. This is because as I explained in response to your previous post (as well as my post before that) the doc's ability is not a unit special rule, its an ability that grants a special rule.

Just because you chose not to bother reading the ork codex to see that difference for yourself and instead attempt to define this abilty as a unit special rule which it is not is why you're insisting on claiming that the warboss doesn't get the abilty. All you're doing is simply repeating the same disproven argument again and again, do you seriously think that enough repitition will make something mysterious start to become true?

You've turned this into...



I am going to end now. I have made my point. You don't have the page numbers to back yourself up so your argument gets louder and nastier.

I approve of your use of funny pictures. I also approve of your backing down from the arguement.

You have made your point & its shown to be wrong. If you dont want to respond to that, thats understandable.

Thanks for calling an end to it.

frgsinwntr wrote:I am going to end now. I have made my point. You don't have the page numbers to back yourself up so your argument gets louder and nastier.

I didn't bother providing page numbers as I'm sure they came up several times in this discussion but if you like I'll happly humour you.

Main rulebook, page 48,
(independant characters joining and leaving units) "They can join other independant characters though, to form a powerful multi character unit."
page 49,
(Shooting at independant characters) "...Independant characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit..."
(independant characters and assaults) "...the character assaults to, as it is part of that unit."

In all three quotes I clearly prove that the IC is considered just as much a member of the unit as the sarge, or heavy weapon trooper. Knowing that you don't like reading posts that don't have your name at the top I will now remind you that the quote you provided has nothing to do with the situation and because I'm a very nice and patient person I will re-explain why.

Ork codex, page 38
Doks tools special rule, "...to his unit"

Indicating the area of effect for the special rule 'doks tools' which confers all models within that area of effect, (being the painboy's unit) the special rule 'feel no pain.'

The IC is not gaining the special rule by joining a unit with feel no pain, as you pointed out that would be wrong. He is however gaining a special rule by joining a unit which has a model with 'Doks tools' in, and thats what grants him the special rule. Doks tools is where the codex overwrites the main rulebook.

let it go already.

Razerous wrote:lol waffles is just a term I use because its random (enough to be funny etc) and your waffle man reminded me of the saying..

What did I do? Get off my lawn!

Anyway, kudos on frgsinwntr for massive amounts of investigative research. He's made me believe that nob bikers with a joined ic are not all knowing and powerful, though the tenacity of the opposition is remarkable.

Also, this thread made my day hahah.

Can we find an exhaustive list of models this has relevance to? I've found so far:
Mad Dok Grotsnik + Unit (Dok's tools confer FNP to a joined unit?)
Painboy & Nobs + IC (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.
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 (Master of the hunt confer Hit-n-run and furious charge to a joined unit?)
Shrike + Unit (See but remain unseen confer Infiltrate to the joined Unit?)
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 and Command squad + IC (does narthecium confer FNP to joined IC?)
Chapter banner + Honor guard + IC (does the banner confer +1A to the joined IC?)

Be careful when you read these because the often cited example of the Chaos Icon for instance specifically mentions that it does NOT affect the attached IC. This list is exhaustive as I currently know it, and the answer will be the same across the board - these either ALL work or they ALL don't. The usage is always the same between these two books "X does Y to *his unit*".

I haven't found any example in older books yet where they were much more diligent about specifying "X does Y to any unit he has joined" (course we still have arguments on dakka that this means any unit he has ever joined... but there probably is no real way to write a rule that we won't froth at the mouth about).

Well, why should it be allowed to use FNP from Painboy but disallowed to use FNP from an Apothecary?
It´s all allowed except stuff like the Chaos Icon which is excluded in it´s own rules or units like Plague Marines who have FNP by themself and not provided by a unit in the Squad.

It's a broken way to declare a rule either way you call it. Stuff like Snikrot granting ambush to Ghazkrull is obviously as over-the-top unintended as Shrike not being able to grant infiltrate to a unit he joins.

Same wording though and same relevant rules in the BGB. This is not as black and white as the loudest majority of this thread would have you believe.

Either way the IC rule has been around since 4th ed. It hasn't changed one bit. Look it up, I posted the spot a few posts up.

So, play however your gaming group feels it needs to be played.

But as far as tournaments or any other organized event are concerned, this rule (again) has been around for 5 years and guess what, it is played like it always has been played (including the GW staffers themselves)! I will not be surprised if you (thats anyone) brings this up to the organizer or judge and you get the "whatz you talkin' 'bout Willis" look.

So, if the IC gets FNP, can I start giving my CSM characters +1 T or FNP for joining a Nurgle/PM squad? :-)

LordWaffles wrote:Anyway, kudos on frgsinwntr for massive amounts of investigative research.

A bit of a shame its been proven wrong (note: past tense).

though the tenacity of the opposition is remarkable.

Almost as remarkable as the ignorance of those defending the concept. Truly its a fine example of those who think RAW stands for "Rules As Wished"

Why should a lack of acceptable conclusion either way be a surprise given the way people have conducted themselves in this thread?

Hymirl wrote:

LordWaffles wrote:Anyway, kudos on frgsinwntr for massive amounts of investigative research.

A bit of a shame its been proven wrong (note: past tense).

though the tenacity of the opposition is remarkable.

Almost as remarkable as the ignorance of those defending the concept. Truly its a fine example of those who think RAW stands for "Rules As Wished"

actually... no I was never proven wrong. I just can't say the same thing any more ways to people who don't listen.

Second you're really a nasty individual. I can't believe you haven't been warned by a mod. All you do is flame.

Nurglitch wrote:Why should a lack of acceptable conclusion either way be a surprise given the way people have conducted themselves in this thread?

meh... I was hoping a mod would step in...

The mods only step in when they're asked to, and even then they rarely actually moderate a discussion.

frgsinwntr wrote:actually... no I was never proven wrong. I just can't say the same thing any more ways to people who don't listen.

Your complete inabilty to defend your argument means exactly that. You haven't posted a single responce to anything I've said thats actually relevant nor brought anything to the discussion to refute what I've said. In every responce to me you're attempted a completely different defense each of which I defeated in detail with relevant replies. Even when I clearly demonstrated the exact page references required you still ignore the over whelming evidence opposing you.

Second you're really a nasty individual. I can't believe you haven't been warned by a mod. All you do is flame.

Yes yes, I'm sure you're very upset some meanie didn't let you get your way. Awww...

You've not been treated unfairly, so stop playing the victim and being so thin skinned. You where quite rude to me after my first post here, cut and pasting a totally inappropiate responce and telling me to try reading the correct rulebook, then you posted insulting pictures to make out that everyone arguing against you was either a child or a donkey. And when it comes to not listening to what people say you're the biggest offender by a clear mile.
You deserve no sympathy for your actions.

You done being a Dick head yet?