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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well this is the way I interpret it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like cheese.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sirouga,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local flavors may vary.

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

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

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

Zero

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

Well Darkness, that settles it then.

Great evidence!

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unit Composition" makes these questions ridiculously clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's really quite simple.

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

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

#4: Example of non-specific:

his unit

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


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

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

"It's really quite simple.

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

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


#4: Example of non-specific:

his unit


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


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

Froggy edit done : )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets let it go.

Moz,

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

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

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

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

They don't.

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

Trekari wrote:Moz,

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

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

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

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

They don't.

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

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

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

Trekari wrote:Moz,

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

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

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

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

They don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(There are 3 of them)

It's treated as *new* because the ork and space marine codex make use of special abilities or wargear that grant special rules to an entire unit more than any other codex before.

These situations simply weren't common in most of the 4th edition codexes, which made the rule largely inconsequential.

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

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

Honestly? I brought it up since I didn't catch it until doing research for the "tactica" killing nob bikers Moz posted. I analyzed all of the rules very closely afterwards and then this caught my eye.

Drunkspleen wrote:It's treated as *new* because the ork and space marine codex make use of special abilities or wargear that grant special rules to an entire unit more than any other codex before.

These situations simply weren't common in most of the 4th edition codexes, which made the rule largely inconsequential.

I would also agree with this

frgsinwntr,

With regards to the Ork Codex, the "Unit Composition" can be found on pg. 95.

Some highlights (all from this page):

"Unit Profile: At the start of each entry you will find the name of the unit, the profile of the models it can include, and the points cost..."

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

This description and guide to reading the charts in the back of each Codex are, as far as I know, in every Codex.

hmm this does add some insight into what a "unit" is

Thank you for quoting it for me

Trekari wrote:Moz,

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

An IC that is joined to a unit is considered part of 'the unit'. For example, page 47 BGB: You use the highest LD in the unit to take a leadership test, and the IC has the highest LD - you use his LD. He is treated as a model in the unit. There are plenty more examples but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the IC is not part of the unit, we can go into that further if you wish though.

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

The question is exactly this; Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to an IC that has joined? Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to a unit that the IC joins? Why are they different? The same rules (in fact the same sentence in the rules) are at work here.

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

If the painboy and nobs are joined by a warboss and required to take a Leadership test, you use the highest leadership in the unit - the warboss. Once joined, the warboss is a model in the unit. As for purchasing Cybork armor, they are not in the same unit when you are purchasing wargear. This is a poor strawman.

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

So what is your point? That the rule on page 48 forbids ICs to grant their special rules to units even if said rules say they do?

It might be my limited knowledge of the English language but I am kind of loosing you here. Would you be kind enough to sum up the key elements of your argument?

Edit: Got all I needed from the above post, thanks!

Moz, but don't the rules for ICs, sepcifically the one referenced in the IC section, determine how the IC interacts with the unit it joins after he is part of it?

frgsinwntr wrote:Moz, but don't the rules for ICs, sepcifically the one referenced in the IC section, determine how the IC interacts with the unit it joins after he is part of it?

Sure there are rules that differ from how the rest of the unit behaves, such as when special rules are conferred (part 2 of this discussion).

If we concede that he's part of the unit, then the question is on the specificity of the terminology of 'his unit' or 'models in his unit' and not on whether or not the IC is actually considered to be part of the unit.

I think the specificity of the terms is a valid line of questioning, but must be applied from unit to IC and from IC to unit.

I do not think that the ICs membership in the unit should be in question.

anaroe: Your English seems perfect to me.

No... I agree. He is part of the unit.

I don't understand your post.. can you be more specific on what you are saying.

Moz wrote:
An IC that is joined to a unit is considered part of 'the unit'. For example, page 47 BGB: You use the highest LD in the unit to take a leadership test, and the IC has the highest LD - you use his LD. He is treated as a model in the unit. There are plenty more examples but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the IC is not part of the unit, we can go into that further if you wish though.

If granting highest Ld is an special rule you got the permission for an IC to confer his Ld to the unit from the rule you quoted.

If it is not a special rule it passes the restrictions given by page 48.

Moz wrote:
The question is exactly this; Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to an IC that has joined? Is 'his unit' specific enough to confer abilities to a unit that the IC joins? Why are they different? The same rules (in fact the same sentence in the rules) are at work here.

Yes it is. There is no other state a IC can be in when looking at the Ork and Space Marine Codices. An IC is either joined to a unit or it is alone so "his unit" can only mean one thing. Either this means a joined unit or the rule has no meaning.

Edit: Thanks Moz

It has to be in question.

You continue to cite the Ld check as an example that he IS a 'model in the unit,' yet during Assaults, the BRB has expressly stated he is NOT just another member of the unit.

So clearly there are times where he is a member of the unit, and times he is not. So what is an IC when talking about unit special abilities?

As far as unit special abilities go, the BRB makes another distinction and exception as to the IC NOT simply being another 'model in the unit.'

The Unit Composition in each Codex states quite clearly what each "unit" consists of and their special rules.

Lastly, there are only 3 USRs in the BRB that meet that criteria listed on Pg. 48 for being "specific" about interaction between ICs and units.

All of the other special abilities and USRs must meet that level of clarity in order to transfer from an IC to a unit or vice-versa. Snikrot does not, Painboy does not, Standard Bearers do not, etc.

arnaroe wrote:
Yes it is. There is no other state a IC can be in when looking at the Ork and Space Marine Codices. An IC is either joined to a unit or it is alone so "his unit" can only mean one thing. Either this means a joined unit or the rule has no meaning.

Edit: Thanks Moz

Er...no, it isn't. Look at the example given in the BRB regarding Stubborn. Dok's Tools do not even come within a lightyear of being specific enough.

As for the IC's "state," again, check the Unit Composition in your Codex. IC's are a "unit" of one model in the case of Grotsnik, Ghazghkull, etc.

Trekari wrote:It has to be in question.

You continue to cite the Ld check as an example that he IS a 'model in the unit,' yet during Assaults, the BRB has expressly stated he is NOT just another member of the unit.

So clearly there are times where he is a member of the unit, and times he is not. So what is an IC when talking about unit special abilities?

As far as unit special abilities go, the BRB makes another distinction and exception as to the IC NOT simply being another 'model in the unit.'

The Unit Composition in each Codex states quite clearly what each "unit" consists of and their special rules.

Lastly, there are only 3 USRs in the BRB that meet that criteria listed on Pg. 48 for being "specific" about interaction between ICs and units.

All of the other special abilities and USRs must meet that level of clarity in order to transfer from an IC to a unit or vice-versa. Snikrot does not, Painboy does not, Standard Bearers do not, etc.

I don't think this is Moz's point although you do bring up good points with the specific USRs.

"If we concede that he's part of the unit, then the question is on the specificity of the terminology of 'his unit' or 'models in his unit' and not on whether or not the IC is actually considered to be part of the unit. "

Took me some time to figure out what he ment.

Would the phrase "models in his unit" be specific enough to grant the ability as opposed to the phrases "his unit" ? Why or why not?

Don't have the main rulebook on-hand so I can't get any more specific on the IC as part of the unit Trek, but I'll get there tonight. It won't all be just about the LD check.

frgs my post was intended to show that not counting the IC as a member of the unit due to unit composition from the codex (and then basically skipping the debate by saying 'well he's not in the unit so the rules can't apply) was an incorrect line of attack to the problem.

Whether 'his unit' is specific enough to include ICs joined to the unit is still a valid point to debate, but needs to be done so from the perspective of:
a unit with 'his unit' abilities being joined by an IC
and
an IC with 'his unit' abilities joining a unit.

We conveniently have both precisely through the Painboy and Mad-Dok grotsnik having the same piece of wargear that confers this ability, though the other examples listed in my first post are directly related through extremely similar wording.

No, and here's why:

Pg. 48 of the BRB says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"his unit" doesn't even come close to passing that test.

Trek, does Mad Doc Grotsnik confer FNP to the unit he joins?

So we can assume that these 3 rules all set the precidence for what is required. Seems to make sense to me.

Olympia - No he does not, unless the unit he joins also has FNP. The BRB is exceptionally clear on this.

EDIT: Note that Mad Dok doesn't LOSE his FNP. He still keeps the FNP rule, however he does not confer it onto a unit that he joins. It does not specify otherwise in enough clarity to pass what the BRB has set as the standard.

Trekari wrote:Olympia - No he does not, unless the unit he joins also has FNP. The BRB is exceptionally clear on this.

EDIT: Note that Mad Dok doesn't LOSE his FNP. He still keeps the FNP rule, however he does not confer it onto a unit that he joins. It does not specify otherwise in enough clarity to pass what the BRB has set as the standard.

Although I agree with what you said above I do not agree with this statement. What does "his unit" then refer to? Is it meaningless on Mad Dok?

I'm fine with that assertion but it is essentially one far end of the spectrum. It also means that the answer to all of the questions in my first post are No, which you'll have a very difficult time implementing in practice.

"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

Moz - I don't consider it to be the 'far end' of any spectrum. It is exactly as the rules read and follows every precedent and example set forth in the rulebook regarding unit special abilities and their interaction with ICs.

Trekari wrote:Olympia - No he does not, unless the unit he joins also has FNP. The BRB is exceptionally clear on this.

EDIT: Note that Mad Dok doesn't LOSE his FNP. He still keeps the FNP rule, however he does not confer it onto a unit that he joins. It does not specify otherwise in enough clarity to pass what the BRB has set as the standard.

Since you are comfortable about identifying the intent of the writers then tell me, if Dok's tools do not confer fnp to "his unit" then why are you paying 160 pts. for what is basically a warboss that can be kited around the table, and has to bang on a drop pod rather than capture an objective (as recently happened to me)?

Trekari wrote:"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

Moz - I don't consider it to be the 'far end' of any spectrum. It is exactly as the rules read and follows every precedent and example set forth in the rulebook regarding unit special abilities and their interaction with ICs.

On what basis do you interprit "his unit" in this way? How does "his unit" imply that it only means when purchased? Since Mad Dok can not buy a unit is the sentence "his unit" meaningless?

We are in RAW territory here, not RAI, so lets drop any speculations.

Trekari wrote:"his unit" with Grosnik refers to the only models included in "his unit" when you purchase him, which according to the Unit Composition is just himself.

If they had intended for it to be read otherwise, then the FNP USR would have been written out in its entirety in the Ork Codex with different wording than the USR found in the BRB. At which point, the Codex would override the BRB USR and he'd grant FNP to any unit he attached to.

But there is a subtle difference between the BRB and the codex and this difference is the crux of the matter. The USR description for FNP states, "a model with this ability..." The ork codex dok's tools description provides the FNP "to his unit."

This is not really the thread to discuss the advantages of a particular unit choice. I play DA and could spend a day and a half complaining about unit cost vs. value.

However, in brief:

He's fearless, and conveys this to any unit he joins (note how is EXPRESSLY states this even in his entry AND the BRB).
He allows any unit to upgrade with Cybork Body for +5 pts a model.
He has the FNP ability, which makes him longer-lasting than a Warboss
He also has a poisoned weapon.

The writers set up the requirements that have to be met for a special ability to be granted in either direction. The FNP issue doesn't even come close to meeting that requirement with its wording.

Claiming to not include ICs in this manner is also inconsistent with previous rulings where its been questioned and clarified.

In codex Eldar Embolden is listed as effecting "the Warlock and his squad."

The Eldar FAQ, then clarifies that Embolden does work for attached farseers. And doesn't do so in a manner that changes the rules, its a 'well of course it does' style of answer.

While the end effect of doks tools and embolden are different the mechanic for applying them to models is the same; "...his unit."
Either the suggestion that ICs aren't included as part of the unit for unit effecting abilities is wrong or the FAQ is wrong, given that the FAQ is offical and can't be wrong I think theres a pretty clear answer here.

Arnaroe - Mad Dok IS a unit all by himself. Pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

Olympia - does the Ork Codex have the FNP rule in it? No.

The precedent for what constitutes "specific" regarding unit special abilites has been determined by pg. 48 of the BRB. I have posted that already in this thread, along with the USRs that fit the criteria. Hell, I've even posted the text from my own codex (Dark Angels) regarding Litanies of Hate also being specific enough to pass the litmus test.

FNP has NOTHING in its rule that remotely comes close to that. Dok's Tools also do not have anything remotely resembling that level of specificity.

Trekari wrote:No, and here's why:

Pg. 48 of the BRB says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"his unit" doesn't even come close to passing that test.

The above text is the best argument in my opinion why ICs that join units should not be granted ability unless the rules specifically say so. This can not however be used when an IC joins an non-IC unit since there are no special restrictions regarding those situations (like page 48 for ICs).

If we are going to open the can of worms that is to figure out different meanings for different vague phrases we will end up with nothing since there is no possible way to figure out the right answer. How is anybody going to figure out if "his unit" is different from "the unit he his with"? The only logical explanation is that they all mean the same, that is "joined unit"

Trekari wrote:Mad Dok IS a unit all by himself. Pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

So his tools grant him FNP and also grant him self FNP?

Hymirl wrote:Claiming to not include ICs in this manner is also inconsistent with previous rulings where its been questioned and clarified.

In codex Eldar Embolden is listed as effecting "the Warlock and his squad."

The Eldar FAQ, then clarifies that Embolden does work for attached farseers. And doesn't do so in a manner that changes the rules, its a 'well of course it does' style of answer.

While the end effect of doks tools and embolden are different the mechanic for applying them to models is the same; "...his unit."
Either the suggestion that ICs aren't included as part of the unit for unit effecting abilities is wrong or the FAQ is wrong, given that the FAQ is offical and can't be wrong I think theres a pretty clear answer here.

Hymirl, you will find that comparative analysis does not apply to orks. Sympathetic readings of rules are restricted only to Space Marines and Eldar. At least trek has logically arrived at the reductio ad absurdum position of denying Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit. He gets points for realizing that if he admits Grotsnik grants FNP "to his unit" he should admit that a painboy grants FNP to a warboss "in his unit."

I think that by the RAW that Trek's assessment is fine. You might try to argue that 'his unit' is specific enough to apply from IC to unit and from unit to IC, but there are plenty of examples where GW saw fit to be very specific and the examples listed in my first post just aren't.

However, I'm not too concerned with coming up with the 'right' answer for this (especially not by RAW), but moreso with getting the 'right' arguments out there on the issue. In that respect I think we're doing well at this point and a local group or tournament organizer could probably make a call on this issue having seen this thread now (rather than the flaming heap that the last thread turned into).

Embolden is a psychic ability, not a "unit special ability." The BRB does not (that I know of) specifically have restrictions on what psychic abilities apply to both ICs and units.

It DOES have restrictions on what unit special abilities transfer.

Furthermore, FAQs are NOT official. Errata is.

olympia wrote:

Hymirl, you will find that comparative analysis does not apply to orks. Sympathetic readings of rules are restricted only to Space Marines and Eldar. At least trek has logically arrived at the reductio ad absurdum position of denying Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit. He gets points for realizing that if he admits Grotsnik grants FNP "to his unit" he should admit that a painboy grants FNP to a warboss "in his unit."

1) Yes, I am sympathetic to the SM and Eldar only. That must explain why a) the ruling about the Eldar psychic ability is not one that I have come up with and not one I've been arguing about and b) why it is that I, as a Dark Angels player, deny myself the +1A from a Standard Bearer applying to an attached IC.

Of course, it could be that I don't add +1A for my IC because the rules don't allow it, just like the RULES don't grant FNP to a unit that Grotsnik joins.

This is not a sympathy argument, please try to keep within the rules as they are actually spelled out. GW set the standard for what is "specific" enough to give abilities back and forth between ICs and units, not I. Be pissy and sarcastic with them if you must.

After reading through this thread, a few questions to help me understand the flow of logic here.

What defines a unit's special rules? Is it the section of their entry that says "Special Rules"? Or is it any Special rule and Universal special rule the unit gains access to?

What about wargear? Is wargear a special rule, or it's own section alltogether? And if wargear confers a USR, does that become one of the unit's/IC's special rules? Does it say it becomes one of the unit's special rules?

I can agree that Snikrot wouldnt confer Ambush to another IC, due to the fact that Ambush is in his SR section and it doesnt specifically say it confers to another IC. However, if Snikrot had a piece of wargear that granted ambush with the same wording, would the same thing apply?

His unit means his unit, the unit he is in, the unit he's joined with. His unit seems pretty specific, as oppossed to "a unit"; not as specific as "his unit and anything that joins him".

pg 48 specifically states that if one of the unit's or IC's special rules didnt specifically say it affected the other then it doesnt. But I see alot of discrepancy of what constitutes the Unit's or IC's special rules in this discussion.

Also, where does it say a unit is comprised of the models that were purchased with it? Or that a unit is comprised of the composition section of their entry? If a unit takes casualties below the minimum number of models in the composition section, all models are still part of the unit right? Even though the unit changed from what's in the composition section?

I think there's alot of grey here, and unless GW clarifies in an official capacity it'll stay that way.

Trekari wrote:Embolden is a psychic ability, not a "unit special ability." The BRB does not (that I know of) specifically have restrictions on what psychic abilities apply to both ICs and units.

It DOES have restrictions on what unit special abilities transfer.

This is a distinction not supported by the rules (unless you'd like to show me the exception for 'psychic speical abilities'?). Two points for you to consider;

Firstly it is a special rule, 'psyker' is a special rule of the warlock and Embolden is an ability granting a bonus as a result of that special rule. Exactly the same as 'Doks Tools' being a special rule of the Dok and granting a bonus as a result.

Secondly you're also defined what I see as the flaw in your reasoning. 'Doks tools' (and the numerous other examples) is not a 'unit special rule' they are model special rules specific to an individual model, the effect of that rule is that it grants a bonus on other models.
There is no prohibition against individual special rules including an IC with their effects, only against 'unit speical abilities' of which 'doks tools' isn't one.

I'm sorry that you dislike having your position being pointed out as biased but regardless of which army or how you play the point is that you're not making a consistent intreptation of the rules.

Furthermore, FAQs are NOT official. Errata is.

Now you're going to attempt to claim that you are right and the entire universe is wrong? I'm trying to be respectful but from my point of view it seems that you've pre-decided what you want the rule to be and are trying to move heaven and earth to get your way.

In the old days we had Errata documents. Today we have FAQs that include Erratas.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

It seems to me that the scope really needs to be stated that everyone is trying to make a stance on, and I agree with fraustdemon on not understanding. The reason that I posted the embolden example (thank you Hymirl, now I know I'm not crazy) was because the ruls as they are written look nearly identical. This is true because I was making my stance that "any" special rule is what the crux of the issue was. If the stance is going to be made that it is only USR's that are implied, then why would you not be able to use a Waaagh! banner or company standard? They are not USRs so far as I know.

To further make this a pain is that if you take the example of Cato Sicarius, I know not an ork. The wording of Battle-forged Heroes states that it is a Tac squad "including" Cato, can take the USRs listed. Why would they include Infultrate? He doesn't have it, and he has to be included, so they get it and lose it in the same instance. I made sure to check, infultrate has the "*". With this and other examples it leads me to the understanding of the wording of the rule on page 48 of the Main rule book to be all special rules that a unit has listed in the army list. Not rules that are granted. This would be along the lines of Plague Marines Feel no Pain, Genestealers fleet (hate that Broodlords don't have it), Mob rule, and the like.

This is the way the rules read to me becasue I think it is a gray area and that the other rulings by the developers set the precedance for what they wanted.

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure not the last. But this is how I look at it.

Zero

Zero, please read this rule again. It does not say a squad including him. It says any ARMY including him may give a squad the rule. If I am misreading it could you please quote the rule for us here?

Or maybe my version of the codex is different which is possible since it is a pdf?

Also I don't think you are fully understanding the point of the *. The * indicates when both the unit AND the joined character would lose the rule. The cases here are different since only one or the other would lose it not both.

frgsinwntr wrote:Zero, please read this rule again. It does not say a squad including him. It says any ARMY including him may give a squad the rule. If I am misreading it could you please quote the rule for us here?

I've got a pdf copy as well, the rule states:

"One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have..." pg85

Battle-forged Heroes: Sicarius is accompanied by the finest warriors that the 2nd company has to offer. One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of the following special rules at no additional cost: .., Infiltrate, .., ..

Now does this mean that one squad anywhere in the army, or the one tac squad that is the finest that is accompnaying Cato? This reads to me that it is the Tac squad that he is included in. Kind of like a special squad that doesn't have to be a command squad. But hey, it's just an interpretation.

So re-reading the entry in the USR for listings with a * states that if both don't have the special rule than both lose it. Cato Sicarius doesn't have any of the USRs that are granted by Battle-forged Heroes. So infultrate would be lost by the tac squad that he gives it to if he joins them. And the way it reads to me he's joined to them to give them the rule.

I'm not trying to make this worse, I just wanted to try and show other examples of how these rules can be read and how it's important that each person decide how they are going to interpret them.

I'd say that Cato's rule doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which squad he joins, as it never specifically mentions joining or 'his unit'. Just any old Tac squad works.

If Dok Tools from Mad Dok was not meant to apply to a unit he joins, why not just write the dang rule as FNP in Mad Dok's special rules line? Instead they gave him wargear.

Homer

Arnaroe, perhaps you should read this page before telling me the difference between a FAQ and Errata.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp;jsessionid=9CE8E2454CCD3CDD88C1C8320C15108B?community=&catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&pIndex=0&aId=3400019&start=1

As far as 'showing' you the distinction made between psychic special rules and 'unit special rules,' you are quite obviously asking me to prove something that cannot be proven, and in result stating I'm wrong.

Of course that's another logical fallacy.

You brought up Embolden - not I.

That answer is part of a FAQ document which GW states is NOT official.

I personally am unsure if I even agree with the FAQ, given that psychic tests are taken on an individual model's LD value.

That however, is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Pg. 48 makes it stupidly clear for anyone who can comprehend basic language.

They go so far as to give us a direct example of the wording they require for it to be 'specific' enough to transfer between ICs and units.

Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Before you purchase a Painboy, the unit's "Special Abilities" looks like this:

Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!


Regardless of what the 'correct' answer is regarding psychic abilities, FNP is quite clearly covered under the BRB pg. 48.

The only arguments presented against this is either disagreeing with "his unit" being specific enough - examples given by GW themselves show this to be absurd to disagree with, or complaining that something else similar works differently - which is so far only according to an unofficial FAQ ruling. If a permanent psychic power is supposed to fall under "units special abilities" then I would say the Farseer wouldn't get a re-roll. Again though, that is a separate argument.

This discussion is painfully clear

Homer S wrote:If Dok Tools from Mad Dok was not meant to apply to a unit he joins, why not just write the dang rule as FNP in Mad Dok's special rules line? Instead they gave him wargear.

Homer

My guess would be to come up with something that sounded "Orky." In addition, they already had to write something that would explain the Painboy upgrade-character conferring FNP to his unit.

As to the larger question of why GW doesn't just write a better set of rules that nobody could possibly argue about....*shrug* If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a millionaire.

Trekari wrote:
Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Before you purchase a Painboy, the unit's "Special Abilities" looks like this:

Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

Thanks for your insight. I have to ask where does it say FNP is added to the unit's special rules though?

I'll cite an example of such. Tyranid codex pg32, Feeder Tendrils: "A creature with feeder tendrils always counts as having the Preferred Enemy unit special rule."

This specifically says that it adds to the unit's special rules, whereas dok's tools do not. This leads me to believe that any options that add USR's do not necessarily add to the unit's special rules, bypassing the pg 48 Special Rules section (which, in this case, would apply to anything under the "Special Rules" section of the unit's entry).

Are you honestly just digging for loopholes, regardless of the consequences?

FNP is an ____?

Universal S______ R___

Either the unit has the FNP USR, or they have the "Undefined and therefore not applicable or usable FNP 'ability'"

Given that the Ork Codex doesn't define FNP, you have the choice of using the BRB definition and adhering to the restrictions on Pg. 48, or you can have your "FNP" ability and not roll any dice for anything.

If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR.

Stop. Digging.

Trekari: I stand corrected on the errata/FAQ thing. I must admit that I have never read that page

I agree with all you are saying up to the part where Mad Dok does not grant the FNP to a unit he joins. How is "his unit" not clear enough? If the wording would be "a unit he is with" would the result stand?

ok. I think this is where I step out of the debate. I can see everyone's point of view, and understand that things can be read differently by different people. And in a competative environment this may cause an issue. If we are going to shoot down anything that isn't specifically called out in the rule book I'll just have to use the rule that is on page 2 of the Main Rulebook that says the most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important.
Many will ask why even play a game if we don't use the rules. Well hopefull I never find myself faced with a situation that can't be agreed upon.

At least this is one pitfall that I can be on the look out for in the future.

Zero

Truly I think the first problem is that the "Dok's Tools" entry is under the Painboy, where 'his unit' makes sense because he is an upgrade character of a larger unit. However I stand by the "Unit Composition" discussion earlier, where every FoC choice is some form of a "unit" so even in the sense of saying 'his unit' it applies. Grotsnik's unit just happens to be a unit of 1.

That being said, the required language would be something along the lines of:

"..confers the FNP ability to any attached unit or Independent Characters." Anything along the lines of what the USRs of Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision/Acute Senses would be sufficient.

If it said something specific like that, I wouldn't even be having this discussion (and I wager neither would anyone else).

HeroZero wrote:Battle-forged Heroes: Sicarius is accompanied by the finest warriors that the 2nd company has to offer. One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of the following special rules at no additional cost: .., Infiltrate, .., ..

Now does this mean that one squad anywhere in the army, or the one tac squad that is the finest that is accompnaying Cato? This reads to me that it is the Tac squad that he is included in. Kind of like a special squad that doesn't have to be a command squad. But hey, it's just an interpretation.

So re-reading the entry in the USR for listings with a * states that if both don't have the special rule than both lose it. Cato Sicarius doesn't have any of the USRs that are granted by Battle-forged Heroes. So infultrate would be lost by the tac squad that he gives it to if he joins them. And the way it reads to me he's joined to them to give them the rule.

I'm not trying to make this worse, I just wanted to try and show other examples of how these rules can be read and how it's important that each person decide how they are going to interpret them.

I believe if they wanted it read that way, they would've said "One Tactical squad that Sicarius is attached to..."

As it stands, the correct answer would be any Tac squad, as long as one of your HQ choices was Sicarius. Yes, Infiltrate would be lost by the Tac squad for as long as Sicarius was attached to them.

So you are saying there is a difference between how "his unit" and "models in his unit" should be understood? If yes, is your argument the Unit Composition clause in the Ork codex?

Summed up rather well Hero. I find that it's good to never really take the work of an author more seriously than the author does.

GW doesn't give a flip about this, and the intent of these questions is clearly in the center somewhere. I doubt very much that ambushing Ghazkrull with Snikrot was intended, and I equally doubt that Shrike not being able to give infiltrate to a unit prior to the game starting is intended either.

I agree to disagree very much with just about everything Trek is typing, and that's fine by me. I look forward to all of this being addressed in the INAT FAQ, attn: Yakface.

I think this is similar to the debates about what SWs can field from the SM codex.

Most people can quickly come to a reasonable 'compromise' in a non-competitive environment and it'll work.

In a tourney, it might benefit you to ask the organizer any questions before you show up.

And I anxiously await Yak's work for next year's Adepticon.

arnaroe wrote:So you are saying there is a difference between how "his unit" and "models in his unit" should be understood? If yes, is your argument the Unit Composition clause in the Ork codex?

No.

Firstly, the "Unit Composition" is in EVERY Codex that I am aware of. It is not special language that is restricted to only Orks and 5th SM.

Grotsnik's unit has a composition of ONE model.

A unit of Nobz is comprised of exactly 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be upgraded to a Painboy. Thus the "Painboy's unit" consists of 2-9 Nobz and one Painboy.

One of the problems with Doks Tools is, because it is listed under the Painboy entry, it has to reference the unit somehow. Simply stating "Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability" would open up an entirely new (and worse) can of worms. If that was all the Codex said on the issue, who gets FNP? Only the Painboy?? To alleviate this issue, it has to reference the unit itself as having FNP, otherwise I'm sure you'd have people arguing the only the Painboy got it.

Hopefully that is clearer. If not, then perhaps it would be better for you to ignore 'his unit' and simply ask yourself "does this reach the level of specificity that the GW-given example REQUIRES?"

i.e. Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to an attached unit? No.
Does it spell out that a unit with FNP through Dok's Tools confer FNP to attached Independent Characters? No.

There's your answer. (Moz, how you can disagree with that I really don't understand)

Trekari wrote:Are you honestly just digging for loopholes, regardless of the consequences?

FNP is an ____?

Universal S______ R___

Either the unit has the FNP USR, or they have the "Undefined and therefore not applicable or usable FNP 'ability'"

Given that the Ork Codex doesn't define FNP, you have the choice of using the BRB definition and adhering to the restrictions on Pg. 48, or you can have your "FNP" ability and not roll any dice for anything.

If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR.

Stop. Digging.

Well Trek, it could be said that you're digging with the Unit Composition argument. This whole topic is digging...

Not really any consequences that I can think of...it's a game, one is supposed to have fun playing. And I endeavor to have fun playing. I try to make sure the people i'm playing have fun as well. I just like a bit of stimulus with rules discussion online from time to time.

I stand by my point in my earlier post. It's a permissive game, and you cant just relegate things to a category unless they say you can. I've found a precedence where it will say it's part of the unit special rules if it's supposed to be. That's enough for me.

Yes, if things were more specific, there'd be no question about it.

I'll agree to disagree on the point and leave it at that.

How can you be so sure that the wording under Doks Tools is only there to refer to the Painboys unit? That is just guessing since it could just as easily be written this way with Mad Dok in mind.

Does this wording reach the level of specificity that the GW-given example REQUIRES?

Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to an attached unit? Yes, since you cant find any difference between an "attached unit" and "his unit" anywhere in the rules. Your question could also be written like this and have the same meaning: Does it spell out that an Independent Character with Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability to his unit/models in his unit/his mob/models in his mob/a unit he is with/etc...?

Does it spell out that a unit with FNP through Dok's Tools confer FNP to attached Independent Characters? No. I agree with you on this one.

How can I be sure about 'his unit?' Um...because it's listed in the PAINBOY section of the Codex, not under Mad Dok Grotsnik's.

Read the Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision/Acute Senses USRs again and try to explain how 'his unit' sufficiently condenses what they wrote in those rules.

Those three USRs are the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD for determining whether language in a particular special rule allows for Units and IC's to transfer/confer those abilities back and forth. To further illustrate my point, I will once again paste the relevent sentences of those three rules:

Independent characters that are stubborn confer the
ability onto any unit that they join.

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.

Characters with this rule confer it onto any unit they
join, as long as they are part of the unit. Units with this
rule confer it onto any characters joining them, as long
as they are part of the unit.

....and then we have simply "his unit" Not even close.

To go even deeper into this, it expressly states in the WARGEAR description that it confers the FNP ability. The wargear is not the 'special rule,' FNP is (which is why it's called a Universal Special Rule). NOWHERE does it list in the Ork Codex, an alternate definition of FNP, so you must use the BRB. Conveniently enough, the BRB states absolutely nothing about FNP being gifted onto ICs or Units when one or the other do not have it.

Fraustdemon - that is not relegating things to categories, that is very, very basic logic. If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR which then obviously falls under pg. 48.

You can disagree all you want. If Fred has a pet, and that pet is a dog, then Fred has a dog. Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly.

Moz wrote:Summed up rather well Hero. I find that it's good to never really take the work of an author more seriously than the author does.

GW doesn't give a flip about this, and the intent of these questions is clearly in the center somewhere. I doubt very much that ambushing Ghazkrull with Snikrot was intended, and I equally doubt that Shrike not being able to give infiltrate to a unit prior to the game starting is intended either.

I agree to disagree very much with just about everything Trek is typing, and that's fine by me. I look forward to all of this being addressed in the INAT FAQ, attn: Yakface.

I find this a very odd attitude indeed: you seem to be recognizing that the authors of the rules phrased them poorly, and then claiming 1) that you know what the author really meant to say, and 2) the best way to deal with this psychic static is to deny that the rules have any objective meaning. Just because Trek's (fairly well supported) reading of the rules doesn't agree with what you think the rules should say doesn't mean the rules don't actually say it.

As an aside, if you're looking to Yak for salvation, I wouild point out that in the now locked thread, he essentially made the argument Trek is now making;

yakface wrote: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.

One of the problems with Doks Tools is, because it is listed under the Painboy entry, it has to reference the unit somehow. Simply stating "Dok's Tools grants the FNP ability" would open up an entirely new (and worse) can of worms. If that was all the Codex said on the issue, who gets FNP? Only the Painboy?? To alleviate this issue, it has to reference the unit itself as having FNP, otherwise I'm sure you'd have people arguing the only the Painboy got it.

Let me rephrase the question, how can you be so sure that the wording "his unit" was not put there so that Mad Dok could confer it to a unit he joins? You seem to be implying that "his unit" was only put there to refer to the Painboys unit. That is going down the RAI-road if you ask me.

Those three USRs are the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD for determining whether language in a particular special rule allows for Units and IC's to transfer/confer those abilities back and forth.

Explain to me why your examples set the standard for how the rules should be written rather then just give an example of how it can be?

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in stubborn special rule)... (page 48)" This seems to me as an attempt to point out a rule that specifies rather than an attempt to point out how the rule should be written.

"His unit" therefor follows the absolutely irrefutable STANDARD of the rules for specifying that an IC confers his special abilities to his unit.

Maybe the designers should not have given Mad Dok his tools if they didnt want him to confer FNP to joined units.

I've explained every aspect of this discussion in excruciating detail.

I've quoted every relevant rule from the BRB.

I've given examples of what GW used to illustrate what "specified in the rule itself" means.

I've even quoted an example from my own Codex that again follows the idea of "specified in the rule itself."

Btw, check the dictionary.

to mention or name specifically or definitely; state in detail:

When something is unspecified, it is called "vague, general."

The examples I gave are GW's example and others that follow their standard. Have you ever seen Sesame Street and the song "One of these things does not belong?" Now would be a perfect time to go look that up and understand why my examples all belong in the "specified" category and 'his unit' does not. Go complain to GW about their example if you don't like it.

If 'his unit' was specific enough for it to be held up next to Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision, then NOBODY WOULD BE CONFUSED. As it is however, I empathize that you don't get it and that you disagree. In nearly a dozen posts in this thread alone, I have illustrated at every turn why my interpretation is correct:

You haven't.

Trekari wrote:Fraustdemon - that is not relegating things to categories, that is very, very basic logic. If the Unit has FNP, and FNP is a USR, then the Unit has a USR which then obviously falls under pg. 48.

You can disagree all you want. If Fred has a pet, and that pet is a dog, then Fred has a dog. Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly.

I agree they have FNP, but I dont agree that it's one of the unit's special rules. Simply because it's not under the unit's special rules section and isnt worded that it becomes thus. Nowhere does it say that universal special rules arent conferred to IC's by the units they join, it simply says the unit's special rules arent. Are USR's often under the SR section of a unit's entry? Sure. But that doesnt mean they're always one of the unit's special rules. That's like saying an Ork Trukk has tank under it's vehicle type because you bought reinforced ram for it. Only tanks can tank shock...reinforced ram says it can tank shock...it must be a tank.

Regardless, it's two people who see something in different ways. I blame it on the english language.

Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

The examples you have given are meaningless since you look at them from the wrong perspective.

Maybe you should double check your dictionary since to specify can also mean: To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will (or unless specified in the rules).

Lets leave children shows out of this debate.

You seem to misread the rule on page 48. Nowhere in the text is it implied that a certain quality of wording is needed, only that it has to be said (like the stubborn rule does but not like the stubborn rule is written). This absolutely irrefutable STANDARD you talk about is non-existent.

I have been trying to point out that the logic you are following doesn't add up, that is why I have not presented my own argument on how I think this all works (actually, I did that early in this discussion).

Oh, and please lets keep this from the personal level.

Quality of wording is irrelevant? The example GW used goes directly to the definition of "specified" (and thus the quality of wording and clarity of intent) that they are using.

You disagree with even that much.

Sesame Street might be a useful tool for anyone who believes 'his unit' is just as clear as the three illustrated and specific USRs. When that is the case, I will bring it into the discussion as I have in this thread.

You have yet to even propose a rebuttal for the idea that FNP itself is the RULE in question that also does not state it is conferred in either direction.

All you continue to do is state that I'm wrong, and that "specified" doesn't need to be specific and unambiguous at all.

arnaroe wrote:Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

On that note, I'm done. My mistake for thinking that primary evidence wins a debate. From here on, I will quote scripture and lyrics when discussing rules, rather than the rulebook itself.

Hehe, you are indeed a funny guy, twisting words and all

Trekari wrote:
On that note, I'm done. My mistake for thinking that primary evidence wins a debate. From here on, I will quote scripture and lyrics when discussing rules, rather than the rulebook itself.

Sigged

Trekari wrote:That answer is part of a FAQ document which GW states is NOT official.

Nevertheless they are the indication of the will of the developers, the people who wrote the rules, and shows how they want the rule to be played. Going against what they think is nothing but childlike stubbonness.

Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Thats right, and the rule on page 48 does not make an exception to ICs being effected by wargear. The rule you're trying to use is called "Special Rules" so why are you trying to apply it to wargear?

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

No, it does not, there is no evidence for this absurd claim at all. Feel no pain is not a rule belonging to the unit, it is always linked to the wargear providing thats why if the painboy where to be killed the unit would not be able to use FNP. Why is this how is this a difficult for you to accept this very simple fact?

I can prove this fact very easily, look at the list of special rules for Nobs, is Feel no pain in that list? Why no. Therefore you're wrong.

Secondly your unit composition point is also irrelevent, the IC rules are there to sidestep exactly those definitions by adding models to other units. While you could try to claim that codex overwrites rulebook, that would leave you in the position of attempting to claim that no ICs can ever join any units at all because they can't become part of the unit. I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that....

If 'his unit' was specific enough for it to be held up next to Stubborn, Fearless, and Night Vision, then NOBODY WOULD BE CONFUSED. As it is however, I empathize that you don't get it and that you disagree. In nearly a dozen posts in this thread alone, I have illustrated at every turn why my interpretation is correct:

I'm not confused, you just have a wild imagination. You are trying to claim that a rule outlawing special rules being given to characters applies to everything you can possibly think of. It doesn't apply to wargear, nothing suggests it does so why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Hymirl wrote:
Nevertheless they are the indication of the will of the developers, the people who wrote the rules, and shows how they want the rule to be played. Going against what they think is nothing but childlike stubbonness.

Nowhere is credit given to GW rule-writers for the FAQs. To be even more precise, they credit Yakface for them. Now what is your argument about FAQs going to be, since I've just shot down two of them?

Dok's Tools is NOT a special ability. It is a piece of wargear which causes the Painboy to confer the FNP USR to his unit. Nowhere does it even remotely reach the level of specificity needed to also give this to attached ICs.

Thats right, and the rule on page 48 does not make an exception to ICs being effected by wargear. The rule you're trying to use is called "Special Rules" so why are you trying to apply it to wargear?

Gotcha! The wargear is conferring FNP, which is the RULE. Unless specified in the RULE itself (FNP), it doesn't get transferred around willy-nilly between ICs and units. Neither the wargear entry nor the FNP entry state the IC gets it. As the popular saying goes, 40k is a permissive ruleset, so demonstrate to me where it says wargear purchased for one unit applies to ICs who join them. You won't find that anywhere.

After you purchase the Painboy, the unit's special abilites looks like this:

Feel No Pain
Furious Charge
Mob Rule
Waaagh!

No, it does not, there is no evidence for this absurd claim at all. Feel no pain is not a rule belonging to the unit, it is always linked to the wargear providing thats why if the painboy where to be killed the unit would not be able to use FNP. Why is this how is this a difficult for you to accept this very simple fact?

I can prove this fact very easily, look at the list of special rules for Nobs, is Feel no pain in that list? Why no. Therefore you're wrong.

The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character. You call it an absurd claim, when in fact it's simple logic. FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR. If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE. If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it. Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet. The pet is a dog. Fred has a dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic.

Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit has a USR.

Secondly your unit composition point is also irrelevent, the IC rules are there to sidestep exactly those definitions by adding models to other units. While you could try to claim that codex overwrites rulebook, that would leave you in the position of attempting to claim that no ICs can ever join any units at all because they can't become part of the unit. I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that....

I'm not trying to convince anyone that IC's can't join units. If you're going to argue my stance, don't do so with strawman arguments. The composition of a unit when purchased is not debatable. It is clearly spelled out in each Codex.

I'm not confused, you just have a wild imagination. You are trying to claim that a rule outlawing special rules being given to characters applies to everything you can possibly think of. It doesn't apply to wargear, nothing suggests it does so why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Again with the strawman arguments? Just because you've lost on the logical, evidence-supported and precedent-supported debate does not entitle you to start with the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. HI said I was done with this thread once and I already regret typing up this reply because I'd make more progress on trying to have romantic relations with an angry hippo than getting you to understand where you're mistaken and I fear that your reply will only beget more insults and absurdities.

Feel free to continue discussing, but it won't be with my input anymore.

I love when people leave an argument to just come right back to it a few posts later.

arnaroe wrote:Quoting rules doesn't mean you are right.

The examples you have given are meaningless since you look at them from the wrong perspective.

Maybe you should double check your dictionary since to specify can also mean: To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will (or unless specified in the rules).

Lets leave children shows out of this debate.

You seem to misread the rule on page 48. Nowhere in the text is it implied that a certain quality of wording is needed, only that it has to be said (like the stubborn rule does but not like the stubborn rule is written). This absolutely irrefutable STANDARD you talk about is non-existent.

First, quoting rules that support one's interpretation are kinda the only thing that can make you right. What other form of evidence could be considered relevant?

I find this line of argument difficult to follow: what possible "perspective" could justify the reading you are imputing to the rule in question? That rule, to quote it yet again, being: "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."

The rule specifies a default condition (special rules are not conferred), states what denotes an exception (being "specified in the rule itself") and provides a clarifying example ("the "stubborn" special rule). Several posters in this thread seem to be determined to engage in the most egregious of linguistic tortures, as if to make the rules confess your point. I can only point out that what the author meant to write (or you believe they intended to write) is not necessarily what they actually wrote, and end by quoting Yak again.

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.

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.

Trekari wrote:Nowhere is credit given to GW rule-writers for the FAQs. To be even more precise, they credit Yakface for them. Now what is your argument about FAQs going to be, since I've just shot down two of them?

Actually the webpage states "they are our own 'studio house rules'" so not so fast on that one buddy.

Gotcha! The wargear is conferring FNP, which is the RULE. Unless specified in the RULE itself (FNP), it doesn't get transferred around willy-nilly between ICs and units. Neither the wargear entry nor the FNP entry state the IC gets it. As the popular saying goes, 40k is a permissive ruleset, so demonstrate to me where it says wargear purchased for one unit applies to ICs who join them. You won't find that anywhere.

Its not being transfered around willy nilly between ICs and units, its being transfered from wargear.
As such it sidesteps the rule preventing unit special rules (which FNP is not in this example), and you're left with the parts of the IC rules that specificly state the IC is treated like any other member of the unit, "Dok's tools" then picks up from there stating it effects "the unit." (I can provide specific page references for his if you like, but I assume you've read the relevent pages and won't need them).

So I found the rules I need. Enjoy being wrong. Again.

The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character. You call it an absurd claim, when in fact it's simple logic. FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR. If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE. If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it. Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet. The pet is a dog. Fred has a dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic.

If quanity of flawed argument made up for the lacking quality you'd have proved your point, unfortunatly thats not the case.

"The Nobz don't have FNP listed because you only get it from an optional upgrade character." Correct.
"FNP cannot possibly be defined as anything other than a USR." Correct.
"If the unit has been granted a USR, then the UNIT now has a SPECIAL RULE" Leap of faith. Sticking with your entertaining dog example this is the different between patting a dog and taking it home with you, they use the special rule but it isn't actually belonging to them.

"If an IC has not been granted the same special rule before joining the unit, except the specifically mentioned cases, then he does not get it." This statement is irrelevent since it ignores the mechanic of doks tools providing it to each model in the unit.

"Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit has a USR." Your false result based on faulty premises.

What it should actually be is; "Painboy's wargear gives FNP to the unit. FNP is a USR. The unit may use USR."
Again with the analogy: Fred has a pet that his friends can play with. The pet is a dog. Fred's friends may play with the dog. That is flawless and emotionless logic. The dog does not belong to Fred's friends.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that IC's can't join units. If you're going to argue my stance, don't do so with strawman arguments. The composition of a unit when purchased is not debatable. It is clearly spelled out in each Codex.

Nice try to wiggle out of the corner but you'll have to do better than that. But my point was that the composition of a unit when its in play is debatable. You can't use dok's tools to permantly assign FNP to specific models at the purchasing stage; we know this because if the dok dies then he and his tools are removed from play thus removing the unit's access to FNP.

So its not a straw man at all, its a dillemmia I'm giving you. IF you chose to try and claim that the composition of a unit can never been altered in play then you logically disallow ICs from joining units because the IC rules state they become a member for all purposes (save combat and sharing special rules obviously).
So either they do join the unit and become part of it, or they don't join the unit and they don't become part of it.

Its not a straw man, its where your argument falls flat on it's face.

Again with the strawman arguments? Just because you've lost on the logical, evidence-supported and precedent-supported debate does not entitle you to start with the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks. HI said I was done with this thread once and I already regret typing up this reply because I'd make more progress on trying to have romantic relations with an angry hippo than getting you to understand where you're mistaken and I fear that your reply will only beget more insults and absurdities.

This forum seems to have a lot of people who like being insulting but as soon as they get their own medicine back they take their toys and leave. You're leaving because I've used exactly the attitudes and phases you've been employing against many posters in the last few pages, would you like some reminders?

"Pg. 48 makes it stupidly clear for anyone who can comprehend basic language."
"This discussion is painfully clear"
"Are you honestly just digging for loopholes"
"(Moz, how you can disagree with that I really don't understand)"
"Disagreeing with that progression of simple logic just makes you look silly"
"check the dictionary."
"then NOBODY WOULD BE CONFUSED. As it is however, I empathize that you don't get it and that you disagree. In nearly a dozen posts in this thread alone, I have illustrated at every turn why my interpretation is correct"
"Sesame Street might be a useful tool"

You announce anyone disagreeing with you is stupid and illerate, assume the argument, kick in with some ad hominem, insult people's intelligence, suggest anyone holding a different opinon is silly, tell people to learn how to read, Assume the argument with a triple hit combo! (Bonus points!), suggest that your oppoenents are at a pre-schooler level, and then obviously after all that you decide to turn around and try to play the victim? Oh the sweet sweet irony!

Well if you want to pretend you're offended so as to think that you have a get out clause to abandon the debate without having to admit your error then thats your choice. I politely accept your withdrawal from the debate.

@Buzzsaw: You overestimate my stake in this discussion. I don't personally care how it turns out, so sure if the INATFAQ rules that the Painboy doesn't confer FNP to an attached IC, unless it's Tuesday and you're drinking orange soda, fine by me. At least it's consistent, which you'll note that not a bit of this thread has been. Page one of the thread I was equally blasted for saying the intent is probably somewhere near the middle by someone believing the opposite of your stance.

The primary issue that I have with this particular set of questions is that there is no consistent ruling that jives with how people play. Sure maybe your local group is weird and plays that Grotsnik doesn't confer FNP to a unit he joins, or that Snikrot is allowed to ambush Ghazkrull onto the table. Whatever I don't care, but I cannot imagine a tournament where strangers are meeting and playing strangers adopting such far fetched RAW interpretations - meanwhile any discussion of the RAW inevitably drags it away from the middle (where it is usually played) to one side of the spectrum which is equally implausible. What we haven't heard is a RAW argument that leaves us near the middle where this all makes sense, and maybe there isn't one. That's sort of the point of the thread.

Hymirl thank you for clearly defining the parts of Tekari's logic that brain was screaming at for the last 10 minutes or so of reading.

The part about the unit gaining an ability under it's special rules description. I don't think that Tekari is all that off, just that to come to the point of saying the unit has the USR of FnP under it's special rules was a bit of a leap of faith.

The definition of specific and the "official" example of specific in the holy book. This again seems like a leap to be demanding wording is repeated verbatum, things just don't happen that way=)!

Keep going Tekari! Maybe try a new approach?

Buzzsaw wrote:
First, quoting rules that support one's interpretation are kinda the only thing that can make you right. What other form of evidence could be considered relevant?

I find this line of argument difficult to follow: what possible "perspective" could justify the reading you are imputing to the rule in question? That rule, to quote it yet again, being: "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."

The rule specifies a default condition (special rules are not conferred), states what denotes an exception (being "specified in the rule itself") and provides a clarifying example ("the "stubborn" special rule). Several posters in this thread seem to be determined to engage in the most egregious of linguistic tortures, as if to make the rules confess your point. I can only point out that what the author meant to write (or you believe they intended to write) is not necessarily what they actually wrote, and end by quoting Yak again.

A quote has no meaning unless it is correctly applies to the situation. So quoting rules in the inappropriate way can mean you are wrong.

Like I said before I agree on the fact that an IC joining a unit will not gain FNP. That has been well established in my opinion.

My disagreement comes form the other side of this rule, what qualifies as an permission for an special rule to be conferred from a IC to a unit. What I do not agree on is that the "Special Rules" rule sets some standard of wording with this phrase: "Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule)..." The way I see it is that "unless specified" is referring to that the special rule needs to say there is an possibility but not that there is some minimum conditions the wording must fulfill. An example:

An IC has FNP. Since the rule does not specify that it confers to a unit he joins it does not (in accordance to page 48). For it to happen a permission would have to be included in the text (like in the stubborn rule).

An IC has Doks Tools. Since the rules specify that the wielder of the tools confers FNP to his unit any unit the IC joins will gain FNP.

The point is then: The "Special Rules" rule does not include any minimum standard of wording only that an permission must be given by the rules.

Further examples:

A Warboss joins a unit with a Painboy, does he get FNP? NO, since there is no permission granted by the FNP rule to confer it to ICs (permission is needed by the "Special rules" rule).

A Warboss joins a unit with Mad Dok in it, does he get FNP? NO, same as above.

Mad Dok joins a unit of Meganobz, do the Nobz get FNP? YES, the permission is given with the wording "his unit".

As pointed out in the OP, in the new books there are a lot of different wordings regarding different special rules. My opinion is that if there has to be any consistency in the rules all those possibilities must mean the same thing: "A unit the IC has joined." If that is not the case ("his unit" does not mean the same as "the models in his unit") we will end up with a whole bunch of undefinable terms that can only be decipher from vague grammatical clues.

hehe, this is getting away from contentious wording and turning into painboy FNP Vs No FNP part 2 again

frgsinwntr wrote:hehe, this is getting away from contentious wording and turning into painboy FNP Vs No FNP part 2 again

The FNP example is just good to use but any from the OP list can be chosen:

A commander on bike joins a unit with Khan in it, does he get HaR or FC? NO, since no permission for ICs is granted by either rule.

Khan joins a unit of bikes, does the unit gain HaR and FC? YES, the permission is given with the words "models in his unit".

As a side note:
I do believe that neither the Painboy nor Mad Dok get the FNP them self since Doks Tools only refer to the attached unit.

arnaroe wrote:The FNP example is just good to use but any from the OP list can be chosen:

A commander on bike joins a unit with Khan in it, does he get HaR or FC? NO, since no permission for ICs is granted by either rule.
Khan joins a unit of bikes, does the unit gain HaR and FC? YES, the permission is given with the words "models in his unit".

It depends somewhat on how 'specific' you demand the permission is before being satisfied. Similar in some ways to non-shooting pychic powers don't specificly say "this is not a shooting power," but its completely impossible to claim that something like "fortune" is a shooting power even before the FAQ arrived for it.

Similarly any demand for a specific rule can be taken to ridiclous extreme, it wouldn't be a valid like of argument to suggest that, since no permission is given for (eg) Khan to give a unit HaR and FC on a wednesday afternoon just after lunch they can't use it at that time.

Basically just as guide isn't a shooting power because not being used in the shooting phase is exception enough, so should being required to be part of the unit be exception enough? Given the will of the developers shown though the FAQ for an alike situation in Embolden, I think the situation is tipped in favour of being inclusive in such cases there something is effecting the unit to cause a rule or condition.
Natrually I would extend this the other way, if you case Doom onto a unit with an IC the IC is part of the unit as per his rules and suffers the effects of that.

As a side note:
I do believe that neither the Painboy nor Mad Dok get the FNP them self since Doks Tools only refer to the attached unit.

And just out of curiousity how are you defining the painboy as not part of his own unit? He isn't an IC you know..

Hymirl wrote:
It depends somewhat on how 'specific' you demand the permission is before being satisfied. Similar in some ways to non-shooting pychic powers don't specificly say "this is not a shooting power," but its completely impossible to claim that something like "fortune" is a shooting power even before the FAQ arrived for it.

This is true, but there is no indication that the rules demand a more specific text than is currently given in most of the rules. The rule in question is actually the only general rule that governs how ICs and special rules interact in the manner we are discussing so we have to look at it as the foundation of the interaction. All it is really saying is that special rules do not affect ICs (and vice verse) unless stated in the rule. There can be no levels of "specificy" (is that a word?) since the rules give us nothing solid to compare to. Saying that the stubborn example gives us some guideline will only end in endless debate over what is enough and what isnt. An herein lies the difference in your example. There we can pinpoint attributes from the rules and deduct from them, like "does it happen in the shooting phase" or "is there a roll to wound"?

Hymirl wrote:
Similarly any demand for a specific rule can be taken to ridiclous extreme, it wouldn't be a valid like of argument to suggest that, since no permission is given for (eg) Khan to give a unit HaR and FC on a wednesday afternoon just after lunch they can't use it at that time.

I think we can both agree that this is nothing like asking for the words: "and any ICs joining that unit".

Hymirl wrote:
Basically just as guide isn't a shooting power because not being used in the shooting phase is exception enough, so should being required to be part of the unit be exception enough? Given the will of the developers shown though the FAQ for an alike situation in Embolden, I think the situation is tipped in favour of being inclusive in such cases there something is effecting the unit to cause a rule or condition.

I must admit that the Embolden issue complicates things. However, since the question was specifically worded for Ld (Psychic) test I think we have to bypass it for now and hope it gets clarified.

Hymirl wrote:
Natrually I would extend this the other way, if you case Doom onto a unit with an IC the IC is part of the unit as per his rules and suffers the effects of that.

By that logic a blast that would cover the whole unit would not affect the IC. But since we are arguing about special rules, not attacks from the enemy, I think we can bypass this also.

Hymirl wrote:
And just out of curiousity how are you defining the painboy as not part of his own unit? He isn't an IC you know..

Ill give you that this is somewhat a long shot but when reading the Ambush rule I noticed that it refers twice to Snikrot and his unit. Doks Tools say that they confer FNP to the Painboys unit. Therefor I think that we can at best assume that he is also affected.

Hymirl wrote:
As such it sidesteps the rule preventing unit special rules

I'm really curious how you're making this leap. Why should there be a sudden "sdestep" of the rule preventing the transfer of special rules from units to ICs simply because the special rule results from a purchased wargear item?

There is nothing in the rules that state that universal special rules gained from an item of wargear are different from the universal special rules inherent to the unit. If no differences are explicit in the rules themselves, then why should they act in any way other than expressly stated by those rules themselves?

Also, I think the timing you mention in conferring the FNP to the IC is in error. When you purchase the 'Nobs unit while building your army, the Painboy w/Dok's Tools is purchased at the same time. Therefore, at the instant of army creation, the unit has the Feel No Pain ability. The Warboss cannot possibly join the unit of Nobs until the beginning of the game. At the point the Warboss joins the unit, that unit already has FNP. Your presentation of timing somehow has the Warboss joining the unit prior to the unit obtaining the FNP ability, and there's no way to do that with the current army list creation and deployment rules.

Lastly, I really don't understand any of the questioning of FNP being a special rule. I mean, there is exactly one place that an acceptable definition of Feel No Pain exists as Orks can take it. That is under the USR section of the main rule book. If the FNP granted to a unit by a Painboy is somehow not this special rule, then where are the rules for it? If it uses the same rules, how come it gets to use the rules that benefit the player but not the ones that limit the player?

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this thread. It is very well thought out, explained and (for the most part) well-mannered discussion on a very complex subject.

It's funny because we're working on the new version of the INATFAQ this week and we just spent quite a while tonight discussing this issue.

I still really don't know exactly which way to go on this issue, and even if I do decide on a course of action I still have to convince the rest of the FAQ council members, so my opinions I voiced before (or now) most certainly may not end up being the final ruling we go with. Although I think I can safely say that whatever ruling we do decide upon I guarantee we will have spent more time thinking and agonizing over it than GW ever did when they wrote the damn thing!

I tend to find myself agreeing almost completely with arnaroe. While the IC rules do give an example of a special rule that specifies how it functions with ICs/units ("stubborn") that doesn't necessarily mean this is the only way such specificity can be achieved. I think the vast majority of players intuitively understand that when an IC has a special rule that applies to "his unit" the definition of that term means it applies to any unit he is part of.

While an IC is indeed a unit on his own, the words used "his unit" indicate that it is referring to a unit that he is part of, for at least the reason that nowhere else in the game is that term ever used to describe a lone IC.

So to me, it really isn't a question of whether or not someone like Mad Doc Grotsnik passes his FNP ability onto the unit he joins (he does), but the crux of the issue still remains whether or not another IC joining such a unit gains the special rules granted by 2nd IC joined to the unit (like Snikrot or a Chaplain, etc) or piece of wargear (like a Waaagh Banner, etc).


The more I think about it, the more I think you have to rule one way. If you're going to allow ICs to gain abilities from joining a unit sometimes then you have to do it all the time, which means Ghazghkull ambushing with Snikrot. And if you're going to rule the opposite way, then again you have to go all the way, which means an Apothecary doesn't provide FNP to ICs joined to a command squad. Because there just isn't any defining line you can draw in the sand to clearly make a ruling one way on one and the other way on the other.


Although I do think you can stick just with "special rules" a.ka. those rules found in the "special rules" of a unit's entry. That would clear things like the Waaagh Banner and allow its ability to be used by ICs joined to the unit. Even if you agree with this, Nartheciums and Doks Tools are still troublesome because although they are technically wargear (and not special rules) they most certainly do infer a universal special rule (FNP) onto the unit and therefore should likely fall into the non-transference camp.


I believe at the end of the day, the whole purpose of the rule on page 48 was to limit the ability of ICs to get crazy abilities by joining units. While the designers may likely have intended them to be able to utilize some things like the Dok's Tools FNP, I think if you go down that road as a 'ruling' you have to then allow things like the Snikrot combo. . .and that, I believe, is most certainly a case of an IC gaining a special rule simply by joining a unit, something that the rule on page 48 is expressly in place to stop.



So keep up the good discussion (if there's anything left to discuss) and most importantly if you guys can find more instances of where this issue rears its head in other codexes (something labeled a "special rule" or that provides a "universal special rule" to a unit that many people play is gained by an IC joining it) I would love to hear about it.

Trust Yakface to look beyond the immediate question and see the implications that extend beyond. I guess working on a project as broad-reaching as trying to FAQ all the issues within the GW rules set gets one to broaden one's perspective.

Cheers mate!

Referring to Yakface's thoughts on the subject

I honestly believe that FNP would apply from Dok's tools to the Warboss or any other IC in the squad, just like the Apothecary's equipment 'should do' to his commander in the same squad.

I honestly do not see the difference in the interpretation of the wording such as "members of the same squad" "the unit he is with" and "his unit". To me these are all the same thing. Just worded different, because thats what GW does, look at the 5th ed SM codex and the Special Character rules, a few are worded differently, but applied the same.

I am referring to (I know this has been gone over 100 times) to the 'fact' that IC in a unit/squad/mob/whatever are part of that unit, and the BGB makes several mentions of that 'fact'. I do believe that 'specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule. "Specify" IMHO means exactly what it says, if it applies to someone else besides the squad it is made for. It only gives the "stubborn" USR as an example because-------> its in the same book, so everyone has access to it so they can see an example first hand. If they gave any other example, it would have to come from a codex that not everybody owns. And btw, the Stubborn rule specifies that only an IC gives it to the squad and *not* the other way around. Meaning if you take this to the extreme, than no ability can possibly apply to ICs, only ICs to units, if you say that "stubborn USR" was given as an example for a reason by GW.

Also if it is ruled that this would work for the Apothicary and not Dok's tools to ICs, I will seriously have problems interpreting future codex rules and other rules in the future, because all these examples listed are so close, I honestly can not say they are different in meaning in any way.

Yes, by making a ruling on one way or another you have to go all the way. But could not Snkirot's special rule be the one that's in error? And truly the writer really had no intention for IC's to gain this special rule (total speculation here), but it would make it extremely more powerful than it already is for a pretty cheap price.


This is all I have to say on the subject, let the merry-go-round continue.

Padixon, yes that COULD be the case.

padixon wrote:
I honestly do not see the difference in the interpretation of the wording such as "members of the same squad" "the unit he is with" and "his unit". To me these are all the same thing. Just worded different, because thats what GW does, look at the 5th ed SM codex and the Special Character rules, a few are worded differently, but applied the same.

I agree with you on this matter, all those different wordings mean the same thing. I used "joined" but yakface used a better term, "part of".

padixon wrote:
I am referring to (I know this has been gone over 100 times) to the 'fact' that IC in a unit/squad/mob/whatever are part of that unit, and the BGB makes several mentions of that 'fact'. I do believe that 'specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule. "Specify" IMHO means exactly what it says, if it applies to someone else besides the squad it is made for. It only gives the "stubborn" USR as an example because-------> its in the same book, so everyone has access to it so they can see an example first hand. If they gave any other example, it would have to come from a codex that not everybody owns. And btw, the Stubborn rule specifies that only an IC gives it to the squad and *not* the other way around. Meaning if you take this to the extreme, than no ability can possibly apply to ICs, only ICs to units, if you say that "stubborn USR" was given as an example for a reason by GW.

Here is where p. 48 comes in and makes an distinction. The normal order of things is that if an source in a unit confers an ability to other members all the unit gains that ability. However, when an IC joins the unit the "Special Rules" rule kicks in and interrupts the normal order. If this was not the case the rule would be meaningless.

"Unless specified in the rule it self (...) the units special rules are not conferred upon the character..."

We have two possible interpretations:

1) Specify means that the rule must say that they work for more than just the source of the ability ('specify' does not specifically mean it 'has' to say IC included in the rule)

2) Specify means that the rule has to say "IC included".

If we look at option 1) and keep in mind that the normal state of things is that abilities confer to all members in a unit the rule looks pointless. "Only when the normal conditions apply an IC gains abilities," is another way of putting it, or "Unless the rules specify that they affect other members of a unit the special rules..." As I see it this cant work since there is no point in repeating in a special rule that things work like they should under normal conditions, it is already how things work.

If we look at option 2) and keep in mind that the normal state of things is that abilities confer to all members in a unit the rule makes perfect sense. "The normal rules for special rules do not apply for ICs when they are a part of a unit," or "Unless the rules specify they affect an IC they do not." This meaning also fits with the rest of the sentence in the sense that the rule is an deviation from the norm.

As for the stubborn example, Fearless is an ability that works on ICs since it says so in the text of the rule.

Hymirl:

Sorry for my bad answer on the Painboy question. It is unclear, to say the least.

What I wanted to say is that the wording for Ambush clearly states that the ability works for bot the character and the unit. This is mentioned twice in the rule. The rule for Doks Tools clearly say they affect the Painboyz unit so why should they also affect him? Because he is a part of the unit? Then why do rules like Liturgies of Battle and Ambush state that they also affect the character in question? In my opinion the unit concept is being stretched way to far in this argument.

What I wanted to say is that the wording for Ambush clearly states that the ability works for bot the character and the unit. This is mentioned twice in the rule. The rule for Doks Tools clearly say they affect the Painboyz unit so why should they also affect him? Because he is a part of the unit? Then why do rules like Liturgies of Battle and Ambush state that they also affect the character in question? In my opinion the unit concept is being stretched way to far in this argument.

Well worded post, the whole thing I mean, not just this part

I brought this one up, to bring up a weird point. There are also some rules meant to work for the unit as an upgrade item, but specifically mention they don't work with an IC (chaos icon comes to mind, but I believe there is at least one other example).

What I mean, is that why make that distinction in a clear unit upgrade (note: this rule in question is in fact in the 4th ed book, so applies to all the 4th ed codices)?

Clearly, GW either forgot about the IC special rule, or know about it and wanted to make this rule (Chaos Icon as an example) a clear no no for ICs.

This also applies to the Painboy and the "his unit" thing as well. is not the painboy in that unit? Does Grotsniks FNP rule only work for himself when by himself, and for his unit and not him when he is in a unit, or only for himself in a unit or not? Clearly GW did not mean for us to have to keep track like this, when they themselves wanted a streamlined approach to gaming.

What I mean is the codex was written in a "high" school equivalent writing format. It is meant for us to understand without having to hire lawyers.

What we need to do is apply all the ways we read this rule to every codex and special rule out there and see which one makes the most sense. Surely, GW is not trying to trip us up on this.

Thanks padixon!

One point on the ambush case, Snikrot is not an IC so I find comparing him to the Painboy issue appropriate. In one example we have clear wording that every member in the unit gets to enter from any table edge and in the other we have clear wording that it is only the unit that gets FNP.

In my opinion it is the stretching of the unit concept that is causing all the misunderstanding. "His unit" means only his unit (or a unit he is a part of) but not him self. For that to happen the rule would have to be worded like Snikrots rule, "Doks Tools confer FNP to the Painboy and his unit".

Mad Doks case becomes clear with this in mind. He never gets FNP when alone since the tools say his unit but not him self.

You are right that the latest codices are written for high school equivalents and that is why we should not stretch concepts too far.

arnaroe wrote:Thanks padixon!

One point on the ambush case, Snikrot is not an IC so I find comparing him to the Painboy issue appropriate. In one example we have clear wording that every member in the unit gets to enter from any table edge and in the other we have clear wording that it is only the unit that gets FNP.

In my opinion it is the stretching of the unit concept that is causing all the misunderstanding. "His unit" means only his unit (or a unit he is a part of) but not him self. For that to happen the rule would have to be worded like Snikrots rule, "Doks Tools confer FNP to the Painboy and his unit".

Mad Doks case becomes clear with this in mind. He never gets FNP when alone since the tools say his unit but not him self.

You are right that the latest codices are written for high school equivalents and that is why we should not stretch concepts too far.

I honestly do not believe that Snikrot's wording is an example on 'how' a rule is to be written when talking about units.

For example, look one page over at Boss Zagstruk, and under his 'swoop attack' special rule. This is another non-USR and ork specific rule. This rule only says "Vulcha Squad" as the unit being affected, and does not name Zagstruck whatsoever.

or Ghazghkull's Waagh rule it says it effects all ork infantry and that all non-fleeing orks friendly 'units' are fearless, does this mean Ghazghkull is *not* affected by his own rule because he is not listed any where in his own rule? (this is in reference to Mad Doks tools not working for him)

To be honest, I don't know why GW makes a distinction when adding an IC or special upgrade character in their rule (like the Chaplain, Librarian psychic powers, ere we go [weird boy power] or snikrot), and when sometimes they don't make that distinction (Narthecium, Dok's tools, Ghaz, Zagstruck, Warpath [weird boy power] and heck we can even pile in the Mek's Kustom Force field, because they effect all 'units' within 6" and don't say himself)

My point is, I don't think GW is making any distinction what so ever, its just the way they decided to write it. I mean surely, you don't think that the Big Meks Kustom force field doesn't effect the mek or Ghaz's rule not effecting himself either?

1) Zagstrucks rules reference USRs right? don't have my codex.. can't check.

2) Gazzies rules say "ALL orks". You can't be any more inclusive then ALL ORKS... unless you are trying to argue ghazzie isn't an ork?

I think it is interesting that no one has brought up Grotsniks specific wording of what his "unit" is during the game.

From "one scapel short of a medpack", last sentence

This means that once Doc Grotsnik has joined a unit, he may not leave it unless he is the last remaining member of that unit

So the unit he is joined with is his unit. Otherwise he couldn't ever be the last remaining member of that unit.

from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

so since Grotsnik has dok's tools and he is part of a unit, the unit he is joined with gets FNP.

In same way, an IC is always part of the unit with the exception of attacking in combat.

Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).

So yes, a painboy would confer FNP to any (and all) ICs with the unit as they are part of the painboy's unit during gameplay.

I'll admit that I've continued to follow this thread. I like to read rule interpretations from the forums becasue this gives me an idea of how people that I play will inpterpreate the rules, since I only really ever play pick up games in a GW store, as well as how my understandings mesh with the rest of the community. It seems that this topic has come back to a reasonable debate and it has gained some scope from all the wild posts that were out there.

I do think that with the post from Yakface that this gray area has gotten some bit of clarity. The discussion of the rule on pg. 48 of the BRB now seems to only be centered around the USR section of the rules. This would exclude things like Psychic powers and added bonuses such as banners (waaagh! and command). With that in mind I believe that the rule on pag. 48 is really refering to the listed "special Rules" in each units army list. Not to any added rules that are granted to a unit. My belief is that this was to prevent the Fleeting broodlords, and Dance of death Farseers. This would mean that if the rule is listed in entry of the army list than any attached / joining IC would not also gain those abilities.

To take the example of Snikrot. Now that I have really read his entry I know for certain that attaching Ghazghkull to the kommando unit while it is in reserves would not work at all. Ghazghkull has IC, Mob rule, Ferious charge, Prophet... He does not have Infiltrate as the komandos and Snikrot do. Ambush is merely an added bonus or granted rule. Now if there was an IC in the ork army that also had the special rule Infiltrate could he attach to the komando unit and infiltrate with them from any board edge? I say Yes. Because that is how I see the special rules working.

Now does my interpretation allow for some really crazy combos? Sure. I don't see it being game breaking though. Feel no pain is cool until the Pathfinders Rend you with sniper riles or I blast you with Star cannons. I think if the rule on pg 48 were clarified to read " from the special rules section of the unit entry" or something along those lines this would be an easier problem to solve.

All just my opinion.

Zero

herozero, where in the special rule Ambush does it say infiltrate?

I can't find it.

padixon wrote:
I honestly do not believe that Snikrot's wording is an example on 'how' a rule is to be written when talking about units.

For example, look one page over at Boss Zagstruk, and under his 'swoop attack' special rule. This is another non-USR and ork specific rule. This rule only says "Vulcha Squad" as the unit being affected, and does not name Zagstruck whatsoever.

I can see the difference there. One could however argue that Vulchas Squad is referring to the previously mentioned "Zaqstruk and da Vulch Boys". But I will agree on the fact that this is iffy at best. When I was reading through the Ork codex I noticed this difference in wording and thought it might make a difference. I am starting to think that I am wrong on this one

padixon wrote:
or Ghazghkull's Waagh rule it says it effects all ork infantry and that all non-fleeing orks friendly 'units' are fearless, does this mean Ghazghkull is *not* affected by his own rule because he is not listed any where in his own rule? (this is in reference to Mad Doks tools not working for him)

In this example we are not talking about how special rules interact within a unit but how a special rule can affect other units.

padixon wrote:
To be honest, I don't know why GW makes a distinction when adding an IC or special upgrade character in their rule (like the Chaplain, Librarian psychic powers, ere we go [weird boy power] or snikrot), and when sometimes they don't make that distinction (Narthecium, Dok's tools, Ghaz, Zagstruck, Warpath [weird boy power] and heck we can even pile in the Mek's Kustom Force field, because they effect all 'units' within 6" and don't say himself)

My point is, I don't think GW is making any distinction what so ever, its just the way they decided to write it. I mean surely, you don't think that the Big Meks Kustom force field doesn't effect the mek or Ghaz's rule not effecting himself either?

I think I am backing away from the Painboy argument. My thoughts on the matter were off target since it is obvious that the Painboy is an integral part his unit not beeing an IC. Therefor "his unit" also means him self. I however stand by my interpretation on the IC issue.

The reason why I think GW makes a distinction is to prevent abuse of abilities that can be an nice addition to the game. Imagine a 15 man Kommando unit lead by Snikrot, Ghazghukull and Wazdakka hitting you in the rear on turn two. Or Shriek, Khan and 10 Vanguards assaulting you on turn one, all with Hit and Run, Fleet and Furious Charge.

budro wrote:I think it is interesting that no one has brought up Grotsniks specific wording of what his "unit" is during the game.

From "one scapel short of a medpack", last sentence

This means that once Doc Grotsnik has joined a unit, he may not leave it unless he is the last remaining member of that unit

So the unit he is joined with is his unit. Otherwise he couldn't ever be the last remaining member of that unit.

I agree with how you define him as an member of the unit but when figuring out how special rules interact we have to follow the rules on p. 48.

budro wrote:
from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

so since Grotsnik has dok's tools and he is part of a unit, the unit he is joined with gets FNP.

So yes, a painboy would confer FNP to any (and all) ICs with the unit as they are part of the painboy's unit during gameplay.

Yes and yes. The trouble begins when another IC joins Grotsniks unit.

budro wrote:
In same way, an IC is always part of the unit with the exception of attacking in combat.

Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).

Although I think that your statement it correct I do not think it is relevant to the argument. I think it is clear that an IC is a member of the unit he joins but the debate seems to be how much p.48 influences the interaction between the IC and his unit or any other IC that might join.

Regrettably I'm at work at the moment and don't have my codex with me. If I'm not mistaken it doesn't mention the infiltrate rule at all. It discusses the way in which a kommando unit can enter play using their outlank. It says that you may enter play from any board edge. How can you enter play from outflank if you don't already have infiltrate? Attaching an IC in reserves would remove infiltrate from all kommandos and then disallow outflanking.

Again I'll check the way it's worded when I get home. My apologies for not being able to answer any better.

Zero.

HeroZero wrote:Regrettably I'm at work at the moment and don't have my codex with me. If I'm not mistaken it doesn't mention the infiltrate rule at all. It discusses the way in which a kommando unit can enter play using their outlank. It says that you may enter play from any board edge. How can you enter play from outflank if you don't already have infiltrate? Attaching an IC in reserves would remove infiltrate from all kommandos and then disallow outflanking.

Again I'll check the way it's worded when I get home. My apologies for not being able to answer any better.

Zero.

Snikrot has a special rule that is not related to Outflank. It allows Snikrot and his unit to be held in reserves and enter from any table edge when available.

Also, Snikrot is an upgr. character, not an IC, so he would not remove infiltrate from the kommandos.

I completely agree with you arnaroe. I was answering a question from frgsinwntr.

Even though Snikrot is an upgrade charater he has a listing of what his special rules are, which include infiltrate. My assertion was that since ambush only appears to modify the way that a kommando unit infiltrates, that adding in an IC that does not have that listed in their special rules section of their amry list entry would prevent the the kommandos from using Ambush.

I will re-read the way that ambush is written tonight when I get home, because I think people are assuming that Ambush gives any joining model the ability to infiltrate.

Zero

yes, it appears that it modifies, but it as listed as a seperate rule all together so we can't assume this.

arnaroe wrote:

Hymirl wrote:Natrually I would extend this the other way, if you case Doom onto a unit with an IC the IC is part of the unit as per his rules and suffers the effects of that.

By that logic a blast that would cover the whole unit would not affect the IC. But since we are arguing about special rules, not attacks from the enemy, I think we can bypass this also.

But guns aren't special rules, and there aren't rules that specific that some shooting doesn't effect special rules.
Doom however is a special rule that is affecting the models (not a universal one)

arnaroe wrote:What I wanted to say is that the wording for Ambush clearly states that the ability works for bot the character and the unit. This is mentioned twice in the rule. The rule for Doks Tools clearly say they affect the Painboyz unit so why should they also affect him? Because he is a part of the unit? Then why do rules like Liturgies of Battle and Ambush state that they also affect the character in question? In my opinion the unit concept is being stretched way to far in this argument.

This is my point, you're arbitarly picking an example of choice and holding that up as what the rule needs to look like to satisfy the condition. You're making the assumption that GW perfectly proofreads their rules to ensure the exactly same standards of writing are maintained thoughout, I'm sure you'll agree with me that thats not the case. One rule making a specific and clearly worded inclusion is not proof that one thats more vague doesn't, thats attempting to prove something by claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absense.
Theres nothing to sugges that ICs are intentionally excluded.

I understand that many people (not specificly making this critism of you but more of a general point) don't like the idea of Snikrot taking Ghaz along for the ride but that doesn't mean you can ignore it, making judgements based on what you don't like is biased rulings and therefore intrinsicly unfair.
For example, I don't think its quite fair that Shrike can infiltrate with 10 fleeting combat terminators but unfortunatly thats what the rule says so I have to accept that fact. RAW does not stand for Rules As Wished. Attempting to ban things just because you don't like them is the rulelaywering in the worst possible way.

You want to tell someone off for being a tiresome nobber with a power-army so do, but stopping them by misrepresenting is frankly cheating, and a cheat is worse than a powergamer.

Saldiven wrote:I'm really curious how you're making this leap. Why should there be a sudden "sdestep" of the rule preventing the transfer of special rules from units to ICs simply because the special rule results from a purchased wargear item?

Because the rule saying ICs don't get the unit's special rules means that the IC can't get the unit's special rules. There is nothing about not being able to use appropiate wargear or psychic powers, therefore I do not advocate that the IC is prevented from doing so.

The fact that that wargear or psychic power provides a bonus whatever it is, USR or otherwise doesn't change the fact that the bonus is coming from the wargear, not from the unit itself.
Remember the rule says "..the units special rules are not conferred upon the character.."

So only the unit's speical rules. The unit's wargear? No restriction here...

Also, I think the timing you mention in conferring the FNP to the IC is in error. When you purchase the 'Nobs unit while building your army, the Painboy w/Dok's Tools is purchased at the same time. Therefore, at the instant of army creation, the unit has the Feel No Pain ability.

No. Compare with something like IG stormtroopers, they can buy infiltate at +X points per model. Now each of those models has the USR from the moment the army list is written until each one gets put onto the dead pile, it is their rule and specificly linked to the models.
Doks tools however is linked to one model only, if the painboy dies its gone and FNP is gone with it. The unit having the rule is caused only by the presence of the dok's tools, and to use the benefits you have to check the model statisfies the condition of the doks tools (ie, being in the same unit).

Secondly FNP being a USR is irrelvent to what we're discussing. The exception on p48 applies specificly to 'unit special rules' these might be USRs or they may be unique special rules that only exist for that unit, like combat drugs for DE wyches which are a unit special rule and won't pass to ICs.

Is that explained better?

Hymirl wrote:

This is my point, you're arbitarly picking an example of choice and holding that up as what the rule needs to look like to satisfy the condition. You're making the assumption that GW perfectly proofreads their rules to ensure the exactly same standards of writing are maintained thoughout, I'm sure you'll agree with me that thats not the case. One rule making a specific and clearly worded inclusion is not proof that one thats more vague doesn't, thats attempting to prove something by claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absense.
Theres nothing to sugges that ICs are intentionally excluded.

And you are making the assumption that when it isn't clear, it's ok to just assume everyone joins together for a party. I believe that when something is supposed to apply to more than the unit who purchased it, GW attempts to make it VERY clear, as evidenced in their USRs.

Because the rule saying ICs don't get the unit's special rules means that the IC can't get the unit's special rules. There is nothing about not being able to use appropiate wargear or psychic powers, therefore I do not advocate that the IC is prevented from doing so.

The fact that that wargear or psychic power provides a bonus whatever it is, USR or otherwise doesn't change the fact that the bonus is coming from the wargear, not from the unit itself.
Remember the rule says "..the units special rules are not conferred upon the character.."

So only the unit's speical rules. The unit's wargear? No restriction here...

Have you bothered to read the Painboy entry? Since you apparently want to split hairs at every turn to try and make your argument appear correct, maybe it would be wise to take note that "He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit."

Last I checked, Wargear was not referred to by a s/he pronoun. If you go a sentence or two above that, you'll find them specifically talking about the "Painboy" as the only proper noun that "he" can possibly refer to.

Also, I think the timing you mention in conferring the FNP to the IC is in error. When you purchase the 'Nobs unit while building your army, the Painboy w/Dok's Tools is purchased at the same time. Therefore, at the instant of army creation, the unit has the Feel No Pain ability.

No. Compare with something like IG stormtroopers, they can buy infiltate at +X points per model. Now each of those models has the USR from the moment the army list is written until each one gets put onto the dead pile, it is their rule and specificly linked to the models.
Doks tools however is linked to one model only, if the painboy dies its gone and FNP is gone with it. The unit having the rule is caused only by the presence of the dok's tools, and to use the benefits you have to check the model statisfies the condition of the doks tools (ie, being in the same unit).

Secondly FNP being a USR is irrelvent to what we're discussing. The exception on p48 applies specificly to 'unit special rules' these might be USRs or they may be unique special rules that only exist for that unit, like combat drugs for DE wyches which are a unit special rule and won't pass to ICs.

Is that explained better?

The unit has FNP? Funny, I remember saying they had that and you disagreed. "Unit's special rules" is a possessive term...and you just said they have it.

Again, the unit has FNP because of the Painboy, RAW. At the moment an IC is joining the unit, unless the IC also has FNP, the Painboy doesn't give it to him. You seem to believe that because it only lasts as long as the Painboy is alive, that somehow the rules are different, but you have yet to demonstrate rule support for that belief.

If however, you insist that it's still wargear doing the job instead of the Painboy, which would be disregarding the actual rules, here is an example of why I disagree with you and find your reasoning to still be wrong:

Pg. 46 of the Dark Angels Codex (my army):

Azreal has a piece of Wargear called "Lion Helm" which expressly and specifically states that it "provides Azreal, and all models in any unit he joins, with a 4+ Invulnerable Save."

Now this is actually wargear giving himself, and the entire unit that he joins, a special ability. Note that GW also made it quite clear how this works. I'm sure though, that all those other times you want the wargear and unit abilities to just be handed out like candy to IC's are just a result of poor proofreading.

Didn't you say that RAW didn't stand for Rules As Wished though?

In summation, you have yet to refute:

1) Unit Composition - This lists the people who make up that particular unit and share the common rules/wargear of that unit.
2) FNP doesn't say it applies to IC's who join a unit with FNP. You claim it's irrelevant, which is a bold position to take given that it's the special rule the Painboy is conferring.
3) The Painboy himself is who confers FNP, RAW. (Written, not wished)
4) Wargear is not shared between units - where in the rules can you support your claim that they are?
5) When wargear itself provides a special ability to more than the unit who purchased it, GW has seen fit to be clear about it. Dok's Tools do not.
6) You believe that instances of clear explanations means it's ok to assume that unclear is supposed to work exactly the same way because it's probably just an oversight. And you call my argument a leap of faith?
6) That the unit doesn't have FNP listed as a special rule, therefore they can 'use it' as long as the Painboy is alive, but do not actually have the rule. Leaping again? Can't use something if you don't have it.



Most importantly, you argue that you check for special rules AFTER the IC has joined. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be a need for the rule on pg. 48. As soon as an IC joined the unit, he would have the unit's special rules. As long as the Painboy is alive, the unit does possess the FNP special rule because he gave it to them. If the IC doesn't have it when joining, then they IC doesn't get it. FNP definition says so.

Trekari wrote:Most importantly, you argue that you check for special rules AFTER the IC has joined. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be a need for the rule on pg. 48. As soon as an IC joined the unit, he would have the unit's special rules. As long as the Painboy is alive, the unit does possess the FNP special rule because he gave it to them. If the IC doesn't have it when joining, then they IC doesn't get it. FNP definition says so.

Since people might not have noticed... in 5th edition two ICs may form a unit on their own. (page 48, BGB) So Grotsnik could join up with Ghazkull for some really insane skull-bashing. Dok's Tools lets the model confer FNP on "his unit", which in this case is two ICs.

Is it actually that far-fetched to think a piece of Codex wargear could confer FNP on an IC even when the general rules don't allow it? Some ICs possess USRs they confer on "their unit" even when the BGB says the IC will lose the rule when joining a unit that lacks it - and the unit will lose the rule since they're joined by an IC who now lacks the rule.

In the cases when a character confers a special rule to a unit it is typed out in the rule.

I dont see a reason why a special rule a unit has isnt a unit special rule and would follow all the criteria mentioned for confering it to an IC that joins. It seems pretty clear that there needs to be something written specifically if a IC is supposed to get the special rule.

Ok I'm home now and I've had a chance to re-read the entry for Ambush, frgsinwntr. I do believe that I was wrong in my first reading of the rule. Here is how I see the Ambush working, I'm stepping through this in my head for about the fifth time as I write this.

Kommando unit with Snikrot is held in reserve.
I attach an IC, Ghazghkull for sake of argument.
I declare that I'm coming in from My board edge, since I've lost the ability to outflank with Ghazghkull attached.
Roll the die and the Kommando Unit is availible to come in from Reserves.
Per Ambush this unit can come from any board edge.

That is how I read it. So because of the loose writing of Ambush, that unit can come from any board edge at any time. If they had included the word outflank, then this would have been a little different becasue Ghazghkull cannot outflank.
I still hold to the idea that the usage of the term "Special Rule" applies only to the little section of a units entry in the army list. Why make distinctions between them in different entries. Why didn't they list Ambush as one of the "Special Rules" under Snikrot and then in the same book list Prophet of the Waaagh! under Ghazghkull's Special Rules. What is the difference if they are all the same?

Again this is all just my interpretations. I try to be civil when I can. And I'm more than ready to listen to the other side and agree when I'm wrong.

Zero.

Hymirl wrote:
But guns aren't special rules, and there aren't rules that specific that some shooting doesn't effect special rules.
Doom however is a special rule that is affecting the models (not a universal one)

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

Hymirl wrote:
This is my point, you're arbitarly picking an example of choice and holding that up as what the rule needs to look like to satisfy the condition. You're making the assumption that GW perfectly proofreads their rules to ensure the exactly same standards of writing are maintained thoughout, I'm sure you'll agree with me that thats not the case. One rule making a specific and clearly worded inclusion is not proof that one thats more vague doesn't, thats attempting to prove something by claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absense.

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

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

Hymirl wrote:
Theres nothing to sugges that ICs are intentionally excluded.

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

Hymirl wrote:
I understand that many people (not specificly making this critism of you but more of a general point) don't like the idea of Snikrot taking Ghaz along for the ride but that doesn't mean you can ignore it, making judgements based on what you don't like is biased rulings and therefore intrinsicly unfair.
For example, I don't think its quite fair that Shrike can infiltrate with 10 fleeting combat terminators but unfortunatly thats what the rule says so I have to accept that fact. RAW does not stand for Rules As Wished. Attempting to ban things just because you don't like them is the rulelaywering in the worst possible way.

You want to tell someone off for being a tiresome nobber with a power-army so do, but stopping them by misrepresenting is frankly cheating, and a cheat is worse than a powergamer.

Now you are guilty of drawing conclusions from a text that does not give you the big picture (do peoples writings predict their playstyle/honesty?). As for my self I happen to be one of the most notorious power gamers around and would not hesitate to use Snikrot with Ghaz and Wazdakka if I would get the chance. I however believe it is the wrong interpretation of the rules and calling that cheating is just low. If you think about it the exact same thing could apply to you from where I am standing so these kind accusations are meaningless since they hold no value and should be left out of rules arguments.

Edited due to posts coming between my reference and my post.

HeroZero wrote:
I still hold to the idea that the usage of the term "Special Rule" applies only to the little section of a units entry in the army list. Why make distinctions between them in different entries. Why didn't they list Ambush as one of the "Special Rules" under Snikrot and then in the same book list Prophet of the Waaagh! under Ghazghkull's Special Rules. What is the difference if they are all the same?

Ambush is listed under Special Rules in the entry on p.62. I would guess this has something to do with space on the page or the fact that Snikrot is not an IC.

The default condition is that special rules do NOT get conveyed to Independent Characters.

Ambush does fall under the rules on pg. 48 of the BRB because the BRB doesn't say "Special Rules listed in the back of the Codices," it says, "unit's special rules."

The only time that IC's get a unit's special rule, is when they specify that they do. Ambush is a special rule. It does not specify that it is supposed to be given to Independent Characters who join the unit, so the result is that it is not given to the IC.

Some would (and have) argued that a special rule merely has to be applied to 'a unit' in order to be specific enough, but that is an assumption that goes against the example GW saw fit to include in the rule on pg. 48 itself.

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to make that assumption, which I maintain is far greater of a stretch than taking the example as the standard.

After all, the pg. 48 rule says "specified in the rule itself" and goes on to provide a VERY SPECIFIC, absolutely crystal-clear example of what "specified" looks like to them:

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

Nobody can possibly argue the specifics of this sentence. It is quite clear that IC's give it to units they join, but units that have it don't give it back to ICs (as it makes absolutely no mention of this being the case). I don't believe that GW wants people to spend more time arguing about the rules than playing the game, and thus I believe this example of "specified in the rule itself" is what all instances where special rules are to be conveyed between ICs and Units will look like. Further examples have been quoted before in this thread, but I will do so again since (hopefully) I have your attention.

Fearless wrote:This special rule is gained by any independent character joining a fearless unit.

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

These examples are very specific, and do not leave room for questioning what to do when ICs and units interact. So in the end, you have to ask yourself whether a flippant "his unit" is enough to meet the criteria of "specified in the rule itself," or whether GW would take steps to make sure that when they say something has to be specific, that they make it specific to where arguments about it can't come up.

I believe that if a special rule is meant to be conveyed from an IC to a Unit, or vice-versa, that at least SOME of the sentence structure and specifics exemplified will be included. That (to me) is a much more solid interpretation than simply assuming "specified" really meant "sometimes specify, but vague works too."

Moving along to your last question..

My guess on the reason that Ambush is not listed as a "Special Rule" in the back of the book is because that rule is only applied to the unit if you actually purchase the upgrade character of Snikrot. Despite the length of these threads, and the heated arguments about GW rules in general, I have to believe that there would be even more arguments if the "Special Rules" entry in the back of the book for each unit listed by default, all the Special Rules that any upgrade character might confer. Also worth mentioning is that by doing it this way, perhaps they are saving space and thus printing costs.

I am not sure about your question regarding Ghazghkull. Ghazghkull has the Prophet of the Waaagh! Special Rule all the time, it is listed both in the back of the Codex as well in his specific unit entry. My guess is that it is related to the paragraph above: Ghazghkull always has that special rule, whereas Kommandos only have Ambush if Snikrot is purchased.

"I am not sure about your question regarding Ghazghkull. Ghazghkull has the Prophet of the Waaagh! Special Rule all the time, it is listed both in the back of the Codex as well in his specific unit entry. My guess is that it is related to the paragraph above: Ghazghkull always has that special rule, whereas Kommandos only have Ambush if Snikrot is purchased."

hmmm just like the painboy : )

And people thought I was crazy for bringing this up last set of "debates" as being analogous...

Trekari wrote:
In summation, you have yet to refute:

2) FNP doesn't say it applies to IC's who join a unit with FNP. You claim it's irrelevant, which is a bold position to take given that it's the special rule the Painboy is conferring.
3) The Painboy himself is who confers FNP, RAW. (Written, not wished)
4) Wargear is not shared between units - where in the rules can you support your claim that they are?
5) When wargear itself provides a special ability to more than the unit who purchased it, GW has seen fit to be clear about it. Dok's Tools do not.
6) That the unit doesn't have FNP listed as a special rule, therefore they can 'use it' as long as the Painboy is alive, but do not actually have the rule. Leaping again? Can't use something if you don't have it.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

My apologies if I duplicated any previous posts, its hard to keep track of what evidence has been presented thus far. The temporary nature of the Independent Character's status blurs the line of anything that is not specifically defined in GW's IC restrictions for transference of special rules.

arnaroe wrote:

budro wrote:I think it is interesting that no one has brought up Grotsniks specific wording of what his "unit" is during the game.

From "one scapel short of a medpack", last sentence

This means that once Doc Grotsnik has joined a unit, he may not leave it unless he is the last remaining member of that unit

So the unit he is joined with is his unit. Otherwise he couldn't ever be the last remaining member of that unit.

I agree with how you define him as an member of the unit but when figuring out how special rules interact we have to follow the rules on p. 48.

budro wrote:
from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

so since Grotsnik has dok's tools and he is part of a unit, the unit he is joined with gets FNP.

So yes, a painboy would confer FNP to any (and all) ICs with the unit as they are part of the painboy's unit during gameplay.

Yes and yes. The trouble begins when another IC joins Grotsniks unit.

I disagree. Another IC joining a unit only means the unit size gets bigger in this case. See below

arnaroe wrote:

budro wrote:
In same way, an IC is always part of the unit with the exception of attacking in combat.

Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).

Although I think that your statement it correct I do not think it is relevant to the argument. I think it is clear that an IC is a member of the unit he joins but the debate seems to be how much p.48 influences the interaction between the IC and his unit or any other IC that might join.

I think it is relevant because it defines what a unit is. A unit is any legal combination of ICs and other models. I agree that if a unit has FNP as a USR, then IC's joining it do not get per pg 48. But since Dok's tools specifically grant the USR to the painboy's/Grotsnik's unit then it is not a "built-in" USR, it is confered via wargear. IMO, USR's granted through wargear do not follow the restrictions of pg 48. The unit does not have the USR, the wargear does and the wargear description details how it is used. Banners would be the same - a WB attached to a unit of nobs which have a Waaagh banner would also get the boost to his WS (though you're free to nitpick that the Waaagh banner description uses the word "mob" instead of "unit" ).

Page 74, second paragraph (mini rulebook):

...if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence...

Dok's tool are slightly different then the USR FNP - it confers the USR FNP onto the unit which includes the owner of the wargear. It does not grant the USR to the unit in it's entireity. Otherwise once the painboy died, the unit would still have FNP. The specific wording of the Dok's tools entry details the unit. Joined IC's are part of the unit. We know the definition of unit.

Page 48 exclusions don't allow a CSM lord to get FNP by joining a unit Plague Marines because the USR is integral to the Plague Marines - it is not confered by an item, they always have it. Therefore the IC cannot gain it. Dok's tools on the other hand confer it to any unit which includes the owner of the wargear.

budro... can you post the description of FNP from the Ork codex if you are going to quote page 74?

Sure:

...He (owner of dok's tools) confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit.

The difference between FNP USR and Dok's Tools is that it is a piece of wargear, not a unit specific rule. Hence the reason why I quoted pg 74. Heck, Dok's Tools don't even confer the USR FNP - it confers the ability of FNP.

So techinically, dok's tools don't do squat becuase there is nothing in any rulebook called FNP ability...

yes but you are not quoting FNP. The Ork Codex would need to have a description for the FNP ability in it for your argument to work... It does not... so if we were to use you argument it would only amount to the fact no orks get FNP by the codex wording...

This is not a line of discussion we want to go down... I don't think the rule you reference matters.

That's funny, as I editing my post you brought up the exact thing I was editing in.

Ok, so maybe pg 74 doesn't apply as I think we can all agree that dok's tools confer the USR FNP onto the unit which includes the painboy/Grotsnik.

However, I still maintain that since it is not a unit wide USR, but a USR granted by a peice of wargear that specifies "unit" that attached IC's (whether it's one or 10) would be included per the definition of unit.

Budro:

How you define what being a part of a unit is (two units in one or a single unit combined of two elements) is irrelevant since the p.48 sets the standard for what attribute we should be looking at:

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

Here it says that if an IC joins a unit this rule applies. So the attribute in question is whether the IC has joined or not. How his interaction is within the unit in term of being and addition to the whole or a unit within the unit is irrelevant since the rule does not ask for that.

Condition for applying the rule: An IC that has joined a unit.

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

If the above condition is met we can look at the next part. The underlined part says that any special rules that the unit possesses are not conferred upon the character. Here we find our next condition and that is that the joined unit has a different special rule. Nowhere in the rule is there implied that the source of the rule matters, just that the unit has different special rules.

Condition: The joined unit has different special rules.

Since we agree that a Painboy conferrs FNP to his unit (via Doks Tools) we fulfill the above conditions and we can now look at the text of the special rule to see if it has anything to say on the matter. Since FNP does not specify IC (as is required by the first part of the later quoted sentence) we can assume that FNP is not conferred to the IC.

If all that is required for an IC gain abilities from units with wording like "his unit" then the part of the "Special Rules" rule that covers this would be meaningless.

budro wrote:
The unit does not have the USR, the wargear does and the wargear description details how it is used.

The wargear confers it to the unit so the unit now has FNP. The source might be a pice of wargear but the unit still has the ability. So if you can roll for FNP you got FNP.

budro wrote:
Banners would be the same - a WB attached to a unit of nobs which have a Waaagh banner would also get the boost to his WS

I have to say that I have not fully come to an conclusion on this one. I am however starting to lean towards the argument that the banner does not confer a Special Rule and therefor does not meet the second condition of p.48.

budro wrote:
(though you're free to nitpick that the Waaagh banner description uses the word "mob" instead of "unit" ).

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

The unit doesn't have a special rule. The unit has a member who has a peice of wargear which confers a USR to the unit. The whole unit. Not the original unit. Not only some members of the unit. The unit.

If it only applied to the original unit, as soon as one member of the unit died, the whole unit would lose it as it was no longer the original unit. Adding an IC to a unit doesn't change the wording of dok's tools.

this line of thinking could work... IF you can provide a rules reference where it says there is a difference between a unit having a special rule, and a unit having a special rule granted to them because of wargear.

There has already been a reference to DA and a piece of gear they have that also does not confer a rule to a unit.

Budro, can you give us a quote to chew on for a bit where there is a distinction made?

Wargear is not the special rule.

FNP is the special rule.

FNP doesn't specify that attached IC get, or grant, FNP in either direction.

Ork Codex doesn't override this.

Once again, look at pg. 95 of the Ork Codex, note the section "Special Rules" which state "Any special rules which apply to the unit will be listed here."

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

For those who maintain that wargear-granted USR's are 'different' than normal USRs, where is your rule support?

Given that I can (and have) provide examples where even wargear expressly states when it is supposed to affect attached ICs or joined units, I am eager to hear this.

That is my thoughts as well Trek

budro wrote:
The unit doesn't have a special rule. The unit has a member who has a peice of wargear which confers a USR to the unit. The whole unit. Not the original unit. Not only some members of the unit. The unit.

If it only applied to the original unit, as soon as one member of the unit died, the whole unit would lose it as it was no longer the original unit. Adding an IC to a unit doesn't change the wording of dok's tools.

Like I said before I think this is stretching the unit concept to far. There is no definition of an original unit, there is only a unit. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of that unit and is treated in most cases as any other member. But what happens then is that an exception kicks in (like the one for IC in assault) and we have to go through the steps on p.48. If "his unit" also means ICs then the rule in question has no purpose. "Unless a rule specifically says all members it does not apply to ICs," this kind of rule would be pointless since this is how it works unless you add in the "Special Rules" rule.

frgsinwntr wrote:this line of thinking could work... IF you can provide a rules reference where it says there is a difference between a unit having a special rule, and a unit having a special rule granted to them because of wargear.

There has already been a reference to DA and a piece of gear they have that also does not confer a rule to a unit.

which DA piece of gear is it? I play DA, and I can say, with a bit of humiliation, that I do not know of a wargear that DA's have that does not confer to a rule to a unit. Unless your talking about the FAQ and Ravenwing Chaplains/Librarians, but that is something that is *entirely* different.

Like I said before I think this is stretching the unit concept to far. There is no definition of an original unit, there is only a unit. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of that unit and is treated in most cases as any other member. But what happens then is that an exception kicks in (like the one for IC in assault) and we have to go through the steps on p.48. If "his unit" also means ICs then the rule in question has no purpose. "Unless a rule specifically says all members it does not apply to ICs," this kind of rule would be pointless since this is how it works unless you add in the "Special Rules" rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two examples I gave about even wargear specifying when it is supposed to apply for more than the unit who paid for it were:

Azzy's Helm (Lion Helm) and the Chapter Banner.

provides Azreal, and all models in any unit he joins, with a 4+ Invulnerable Save.

The Chapter Banner of course says that all units with a model within 12" I believe, are fearless, and that the Standard Bearer's unit gets +1A.

Some will dismiss this example, however I find it compelling that they are again specific when a piece of wargear applies an ability to more than just the unit who purchased it. Now these are not 'special rules' and do not fall under pg. 48, but what I consider to be more of the 'everyman' understanding.

Some will dismiss this example, however I find it compelling that they are again specific when a piece of wargear applies an ability to more than just the unit who purchased it. Now these are not 'special rules' and do not fall under pg. 48, but what I consider to be more of the 'everyman' understanding.

Fearless is

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

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

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

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

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

Zero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check pg. 95 of the Ork Codex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pg. 48 of the BRB says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wargear is not the special rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hymirl wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

Wargear is not the special rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a reminder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

- Iorek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

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

My rebuttal, which can be found here:

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

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

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

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

Zero

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

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

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

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

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


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

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

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

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



What is a Special Rule?

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


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

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

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

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



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

I see three real possibilities:


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Yakface,

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

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

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


Regarding your choice of G:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

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

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

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

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

To clear my point up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FNP is the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

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

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

This is not an interpretation, it is basic English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As regards your previous typed refutations theres a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

As Hymirl has said:

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

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

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

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

The I think the whole having all relevent rules pages and quoting them as the argument was trek's strongest point :p

Honestly,
1) The unit has a special rule (rulebook doesn't distinquish between wargear/painboy granted and inate)
2) An IC is joining the unit.
3) page 48 tells you have a IC intereacts with the special rules of the unit.

I think thats a pretty logical approach.

But seriously, please read Moz's original post as this is getting way to far off topic and into a different thing completely

frgsinwntr wrote:The I think the whole having all relevent rules pages and quoting them as the argument was trek's strongest point :p

Quoting rules proves nothing if they're not rules that are relevent to the situation. Thats the point that neither of you have proven. Given that Trek only made those quotes as part of his continuing insistence on not responding to the holes poked in his argument by Gitzbitah I'd say that in the big picture going back to basics seriously weakened the credability of his position.
Of course, you'd be more than welcome to step up to the plate on his behalf?

Honestly,
1) The unit has a special rule (rulebook doesn't distinquish between wargear/painboy granted and inate)

Quite correct. And without any evidence that bonus applied by wargear are a unit special rule in the same manner as the ones units are listed as coming with the whole theory of appying p48's restriction on ICs gaining special rules is simply one of choice. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, given that there are no rules telling us to include individual units member's wargear or pyshic abilities as one of the unit's special rules I see no reason at all why we should do so.

Its intresting that you seem to think the logical approach is that a medic stands about twiddling his thumbs while his commander lies on the floor bleeding, or that a magnificant chapter banner inspires everyone except the the captian. Of course thats not logic, its just that our opinons differ.

But seriously, please read Moz's original post as this is getting way to far off topic and into a different thing completely

If you don't wish to talk about this that is your choice, but I will defend my point when I need to do so. Its not reasonable to make your argument and then announce that no-one else should talk about it.

[quote=HymirlIts intresting that you seem to think the logical approach is that a medic stands about twiddling his thumbs while his commander lies on the floor bleeding, or that a magnificant chapter banner inspires everyone except the the captian. Of course thats not logic, its just that our opinons differ.

If we’re going fluff, then the Dok's are always looking for people to operate on, if the Boss wants treatment he demands it, if he is incapacitated he could get saved but end up with half a squig for a face.

The IC in no way or form gains the FNP rule from joining a unit with FNP, this is the situation covered by those rules.

However you then have to consider the dok's tools, if the dok is still alive then he is still conferring FNP to his unit, and if you accept that the IC is part of that unit then he too must be granted FNP

Basically I need to know where you disagree. In your opinion:

Does the codex trump the BRB?

Do dok's tools grant FNP on his unit as long as he is alive?

Does an IC attached to a unit count as part of the unit?

frgsinwntr wrote:and yes good point about the no listing of that they are the same thing.

I feel it is a safe assumption that since we are using a USR referenced by the wargear that it should follow the rules for USRs and ICs.

Nevertheless, it is an assumption and it is your opinon. Thats not a problem, but what you can't do is claim that your opinon is the rule when there is no evidence to back up your assumption. Logical deduction only works if its based on facts, if you don't have solid foundations you can't build anything on it that won't fall down.

You can't apply Human Logic to Orks if you're going to use a fluff argument

I'm not using a fluff argument, I'm demonstrating that its useless to apply what one person thinks 'is logical' as an answer. Its not the specific example itself but the way the process is being made, possibly I ought to have made that a little more clear.

Hymirl wrote:

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

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

Show me an example of your claim that is it incompatible with the rules. A mere suggestion that "it wouldn't work" doesn't prove your point without an example. Do make sure that it has at least SOMETHING to do with a special rule, given that this discussion is all about those, ok? Please?

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

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

Wrong again. The wargear the Painboy carries, allows the Painboy to give FNP to his unit. No rule, ANYWHERE states that the default condtion for special rules from wargear is that they are not conferred to the unit who has it. The rules DO place restrictions on how special rules get applied to ICs who go to JOIN such units. Those rules provide exactly ONE way for special rules to be given to IC's who don't have them, and that method requires it to be listed in the special rule itself. What the wargear says is NOT relevant for overriding this restriction.

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

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

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

As I've clearly explained to you multiple times, the unit has FNP as a special rule before the IC goes to join them. Thus the ONLY allowed method within the rules for this special rule to be passed onto the IC states that it must say in the RULE ITSELF.

Since you cannot untangle yourself from Gitzitbah's post:

3) The wargear is not creating an 'identical effect.' It is the instrument by which GW represents a USR being applied to the unit. The absence of a FNP description in the Painboy entry does nothing to support his claim, as the BRB expressly states that universal special rules are listed there as a matter of convenience. There is only one category of the term "Feel No Pain" and that is a special rule.

4) Has been directly refuted. There is only ONE mechanic for applying a special rule to someone joining a unit. Refreshing wargear is not it.


You continue to miss the point, grossly, at nearly every critical juncture.

Continuing to bring up Embolden is irrelevent, as it is not a special rule. It is a psychic ability that does not even apply a special rule.
You continue to argue from the stance that a special rule 'generated' by a piece of wargear doesn't have pg. 48 apply to it, yet you have NO EVIDENCE to support this claim and pg. 48 makes NO EXCEPTION for the source of a special rule.

This debate is really going. I went to bed thinking that I was going to get up and look at the listings for Terminator Armor and I see the thread has gone on to new and better things.

I'm going to say that by my interpretaion, Yakface is Wrong. * EDIT* After reading the post from Yakface one more time I do see that Option B would fit what I was thinking. My apologies*

Reading his post and taking all the comments in the last three threads into account I do not think that this debate is strictly about "Universal Special Rules". In options A-D a USR is the main point of reference, and I think that is a mistake. Regrettably everyone keeps arguing around differnet bits of each rule. Page 48 states one thing, "his unit" means another. I've breifly looked back through the codex and from what I see I think my interpretaion would fit into the two most argued examples. Regrettably I can explain what I think accurately enough using the verbiage from GW. Many of the words are interchangeable and some think they mean one thing and other think differently.

Example.
I give you a resipe to cook your dinner. In the resipe I include all of the ingrediants. One of which is salt. When you go to your spices you see you have different containers that read salt. You have 1. Garlic Salt, 2. Sea Salt, 3. Lemon Pepper Salt, and one that reads 4. Salt. Which do you use? You don't want to make a mistake in your meal because each of these is different. Why would I need to look any farther than what is plainly written on my spice?

Now I'm using my understanding of the way the Rules for 40K are worded. On pg. 48 it specicifally states Special Rules. It explains that they might be different. Now I look at my army lists and I see different sections such as, 1. Wargear, 2. Unit Type, 3. Options, and 4. Special Rules. I understand that the bulk majority of the listings in Special Rules will directly reflect a USR, but not all.

Now I look at the two major examples that everyone here seems to be debating. Ex. 1 is FNP from doks tools. FNP is not listed in any of the Special Rules for any of my units there for the restrictions for my IC's joining these units are not ever effected by the rule on page 48. No matter what other things are granted/conferred to anyone. Ex 2. Ambush. I look at the description of the Ambush entry and see that it is indeed listed under the Special Rules for the Boss Snikrot model. I then look at the listing agin and see that it does not state that IC's joining are effected, so any joining IC will not gain this Special Rule. This interpretaion does lead to a weird dilemma, There is no * and no wording that states that Ambush won't be lost by the Kommandos, so How do I deply from any board edge if the IC can't follow? By my understanding this is easily answered, You can't if the IC is there.

I don't think this argument is plain easy. It wouldn't have gone on so long if it were. What I think is holding everyone down is the way that each person reads the rules and how they enact what they read.

Zero

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

The point is, while there certainly are rules that are examples of more specific wording (such as in the example they provide of 'stubborn'), they also don't clarify that this is the only type of specificity that is acceptable. As such, it is really left up to the reader to decide exactly how specific the wording needs to be in order to qualify, which is exactly why this debate has lasted as long as it has.

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

While in principle, of course I agree. The reality is, there are times where the RAW are absolutely ridiculous. The 4th edition rule that models simply carrying a rapid fire weapon that fired another type of weapon (like a pistol) couldn't assault in the same turn is a perfect example. The rules were not ambiguous in any way, but a vast, vast majority of players read the rule and instantly recognized that it was a mistake and decided not to play that way.

If a fan created FAQ goes out of its way to always rule how they feel the RAW stand even when it goes against how the vast majority of players interpret the rules then the only thing it accomplishes is to get people to ignore the FAQ.

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

The 'RAW' are not some perfect ideal that everyone can agree on. Language is fluid and open to interpretation which is exactly the issue we have in this particular case. If you make your ruling based on your understanding of the RAW there are always going to be people who disagree with your interpretation.

In the case of a true grey area (where people truly think there are different ways to read the 'RAW') it most certainly behooves any FAQ to try to capitulate to how the majority of players are already interpreting the situation. In this way, the fewest number of players are forced to change their playing styles based on a FAQ, and instead the majority of players simply continue to play the way they already have been.

Yakface,

I'm very curious what parts of my argument and clarification you do not agree with.

I also want to reiterate that a poll on these forums in no way represents a scientific sampling of 40k players, as the only people to respond to the poll in the first place are ones who had the title stir their attention, then cared enough to vote, etc.

Lastly, if you go against (what I consider to be) RAW, where special rules are only conferred with ONE specific mechanism, would it be possible for a comment to be included that it isn't RAW?

I think the results of the poll are very interesting indeed...

The Rules are clear. A warboss would not gain any benefit by joining the Nobs 20% [ 16 ]
The rules are not all that clear but the boss should not gain the benefit since he is an IC 5% [ 4 ]
The Boss should gain FNP and the rules are clear 37% [ 29 ]
The rules are not clear but the boss should gain FNP 23% [ 18 ]
By RAW, the boss should not get it. However I play it as he does. 13% [ 10 ]
Other. (comment below) 3% [ 2 ]

This tells me that:
33% of the people read Raw as FNP is not confered
33% of the people read it as Raw, it is confered...
33% of the people see the rules as not clear
and Moz likes pedro

This makes it very hard to make a decision for an FAQ ;p wouldnt want to be in your shoes yak