Boss Ardnutz wrote:Hullo.

I just realised that Snikrot's Ambush rule is not a valid comparison for Dok's Tools.

Snikrot's Ambush rule is listed in his codex entry under 'special rules'. Therefore p48 will apply and an IC attached to the unit will not gain the rule.

Dok's Tools are not listed as a special rule therefore p48 does not apply and an IC attached to the unit will gain FNP.

It is listed under snikrot, not kommandos. This is a very valid comparison

Trekari wrote:Monstrous Creature
Infantry
Vehicles
Artillery
IC attached to another unit
ICs by themselves
etc

I noticed that you didn't respond to my Ambush question. Nor have you responded to the definition of "unit's special rules."

I find it amusing that you still claim the unit doesn't have FNP. Would you make a FNP roll for any of its members while the Painboy was alive?

Of course we both know where that line of questioning is going. Either they have FNP and can use it, and thus it is one of their special rules, or they don't.

You on the other hand will continue to argue that they do have FNP, but it's not really theirs, so pg. 48 doesn't apply. You will also argue that the example given by pg. 48 doesn't mean a damn thing, and that specify doesn't actually mean "1 : to name or state explicitly or in detail," of course the English language disagrees with you there, but what's a minor detail like that?

Now we've dropped down to debating what consists of a unit. I say "his unit" in the Painboy entry refers solely to the unit the Painboy is purchased with, which is a valid definition of "unit" per the rules and the Codex itself. You say it's meant to include attached ICs, which admittedly is another valid definition of unit.

That brings us back to the example I've given of even wargear being specific when one unit's wargear (possessive noun) is meant to confer a bonus to attached ICs or other nearby units.

Round and round we go. I've got the English language on my side: you've got your opinion. It's been fun.

Ok, here we go,

1) Those you listed are all *one* definition of a unit found on Pg. 3, plus you made up some, they only give a few examples in their definition. So, Unit only has 1 definition.

2) Find FNP anywhere under special rules for either orks or any unit of orks in the codex please. No you cant, thought so. You make a FNP roll for the same reason you do it when you have an apoth. He has a wargear that gives it to the unit he is with.

3) I'm not arguing that FNP is a special rule. You keep thinking that because it is it is impossible for an attached IC to have it. See below for explanation.

4) It does "1 : to name or state explicitly or in detail," with the rule "his unit" and ICs are in "his unit". simple, also, I understand English just fine. Maybe you are having the problem? John the rules guy (English man himself) ruled in favor of my view. hmmm....something to think about maybe.

5) Yes the unit. Read the definition on pg. 3, I have a feeling you haven't yet, given your idea there is more than one definition, and the ones you listed are not the ones the BGB listed. Please read the rulebook, then come back, because you are showing a poor understanding of the rules at this point.

In addition to 5) How do you make the assumption that "his unit" only applies to the unit he is purchased for. I do not see that anywhere. Ask yourself this: Is the IC *IN* "his unit"? So wouldn't that mean he is fulfilling that part of the rule of "his unit". This *is* simple English.
Again there is no other definition of the word 'unit', in game terms. Please oh please read pg. 3 of the BGB.

6) If you think that a wargear can not possible effect attached ICs, then why would another wargear (chaos icon) go to great lengths to specify that they do *not* work for attached ICs? Why would they put this in there? Surely they (the codex writer) knew of the IC rules right? OR he put that in there because you *can* use a wargear that works for the unit also work for any attached ICs because they are *IN* that unit.

There you go, I answered all your queries, please take your time, read the BGB, and respond to mine in kind.

In truth, the only difference you and I have on this issue is whether the term "his unit" is enough to qualify for "...specified in the rule itself". I think it does, the rule guy at GW thinks it does, heck even all the tournaments for the past 5 years and all the GT FAQS, all the battle reports for the past 5 years, including the ones played by GW rule makers themselves, has played it that it does.


*************THIS RULE IS NOT NEW! IT IS A COPY AND PASTE FROM 4TH EDITION, INCLUDING THE PART ABOUT THE EXAMPLE GIVEN (STUBBORN), AND THE STUBBORN RULE IS ALSO CUT AND PASTE!*****************

For 5 years we have played that apoths, chaplains, painboys, dok's, Avatars, or any other unit that gives a 'special rule' to another 'unit' also include ICs. Why oh why is this *NEW* is beyond me.

Myself and Donovan have disscussed this rule at great length. The main problem seems to stem from the way the rule is applied to the unit by the wording "his unit".


We both came to the conclusion that Snikrot will grant the ambush ability to "his unit" this includes any attached ICs. The same goes for painboys and the FNP ability for a unit of Nobs with an attached IC.

The clinching point for the ruling was the same usage for wording in Mad Dok Grotsnik's profile. If we take the wording "his unit" to mean the purchased unit only then we could only conclude that Grotsnik would not pass on the FNP ability to any unit he joins. I believe that most of you would agree that a turning Grotsnik into a 160 pnt glorified Nob is just silly.

Padixon summed up the finer points.

1) I listed several valid definitions of unit, all of which are indeed found on pg. 3 of the BRB as you've asked me to read. Turn the page, and you will find more examples of units. I'm sorry you feel I made those up. Maybe you just hadn't made it to pg. 4 and 5 yet. *shrug*

2) FNP isn't listed in the back of the Ork Codex, and that is your justification? Well then, IC's aren't listed as part of the Painboy's unit in the back either.

4) ICs are not treated as normal members of a unit when Special Rules come into play. Notice how pg. 48 is in the "Characters" section of the rulebook, and specifically mentions Special Rules when they join or leave units? There is a mechanic in place for determining whether an IC gets special rules that a unit has upon joining them. One mechanic. One method. One way. Simply saying "well...he's a member of the unit now so he does" is not that method. Just like ICs are not considered normal members of a unit during Assaults, they are not considered normal members of a unit as far as special rules are concerned either. Pg. 48 makes this very clear by requiring that special rules actually specify that ICs get it, otherwise they DON'T. If they were treated as normal members of a unit they join, then there would be no need to specify anything.

When you purchase the Painboy, he gives his unit FNP.
The unit now has FNP.
By definition, FNP is now one of the unit's special rules, because they HAVE it. Possessive nouns ftw.
IC goes to join the unit, they have FNP, he does not.
FNP doesn't say it is to be conferred to ICs, and for that matter, neither does the wargear.
He joins the unit, but does not get FNP for this reason.

That is the absolute end of the procedure allowed for making the decision as to whether an attached IC gets a special rule from a unit. All you have done to refute the possessive noun issue is claim that language doesn't matter.

Very compelling. :rolleyes:

5) I see no reason to assume your claim over mine, given that mine is supported by the Codex itself. Each unit listed in the Codex is a unique and individual unit all on its own. You make the assumption that "his unit" refers to attached characters, and yet under the Nobz entry in the back, the only composition listed is 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be a Painboy. As they were all written and listed as separate, discreet units, that is what the Painboy's unit consists of for the purposes of his rule. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, because pg. 48 still comes into play whenever you join an IC to a unit, or leave one.

6) I see you now are attempting to put words into my mouth. I said the text of wargear is not the mechanic by which the rules say you determine if a special rule is conferred when ICs join or leave units. I did not say that wargear cannot possibly affect ICs. There is a difference. Conveniently you must be overlooking my example of wargear conferring a bonus to an IC, along with any member of a unit they join. It would be awkward to provide such an example if I were to have claimed that wargear never affects anyone other than the unit who purchased it.

Perhaps the Codex writers wanted to make sure that people understood the limitation, given that what it applies is a special rule. Obviously not mentioning that specifically is a big problem, because then some people believe pg. 48 doesn't matter. "Mark of x" is a special rule however, and the rule doesn't mention it gets conferred to an IC, so it wouldn't have anyways.

7) Ah, good ol' unsubstantiated claims. You think "his unit" is specific enough, which:

a) goes against the example given
b) goes against every other example of a special rule specifying that an IC gets it, or that an IC grants it to units he joins.

You also quote the "GW rule guy," which is hilarious given that he makes two different suggestions for rules that use the same method of determination. As for your claims about tournaments, unless you are prepared to show evidence of this claim, it is absolutely meaningless as you haven't proven it.

As for the copy/paste issue. All I care about is that it's a rule in the current rulebook. If you've played it otherwise for 5 years, that doesn't mean you've been playing it correctly.

Clay Williams wrote:Myself and Donovan have disscussed this rule at great length. The main problem seems to stem from the way the rule is applied to the unit by the wording "his unit".


We both came to the conclusion that Snikrot will grant the ambush ability to "his unit" this includes any attached ICs. The same goes for painboys and the FNP ability for a unit of Nobs with an attached IC.

The clinching point for the ruling was the same usage for wording in Mad Dok Grotsnik's profile. If we take the wording "his unit" to mean the purchased unit only then we could only conclude that Grotsnik would not pass on the FNP ability to any unit he joins. I believe that most of you would agree that a turning Grotsnik into a 160 pnt glorified Nob is just silly.

Padixon summed up the finer points.

Wow.

Throwing the rules out the window because an IC isn't very point-worthy? Nevermind that a 160pt IC with FNP sounds pretty damn useful to me.

So RAW, you agree with me, but since that makes Grotsnik "silly" in your opinion, you overruled the rules. Amazing.

Lesson here: forget the rules, if you don't like a character's perceived value because of a rule restriction, remove the rule! Where do I sign up to be a volunteer judge, as I want this ability as well?

Your passion for seeing yourself in the right has clearly clouded your better judgment.

RAW - I do not agree with you as "his unit" can be taken in two different ways. Because of this we use other examples to garner the obvious. The rules you are referring to, pg. 48 Special Rules, that deny a character that units ability do not prohibit an IC from gaining abilities based on that units war gear or special abilities that state "the unit" gains them.

Is it hard to see that so many of your peers have come to the same conclusions about this rule?


I am truly sorry that you cannot contain yourself when it comes to a discussion about game mechanics, though I do appreciate seeing someone so engulfed in the game as I myself enjoy 40k very much. I am sorry if I offended you in any why with my lighthearted comment about Grotsnik.

You cannot sign up to be a judge. We are chosen from the community because of our knowledge of the rules as well as our ability to help foster the community. If you really want to be a judge them I would suggest becoming more active in your local gaming group or region. This kind of activity does not go unnoticed.

"his unit"

That's where you and I disagree, and many of my peers agree with me, so who's right? You and your peers, or me and mine?

The example given in the rulebook regarding Stubborn go a long way towards stating the obvious, that "his unit" is not nearly specific enough. So do all the other examples I've given of special rules being SPECIFIC when an IC is supposed to inherit them from a unit he joins and vice-versa. You said you looked to examples...evidently you overlooked Litanies of Hate, One Scalpel Short of a Medpack, Fearless, Night Vision, Stubborn, etc.

And again with "Special Rules" being an inclusive term. Pg. 48 covers any and all sources of special rules.

If you disagree with that, then move on to the possessive noun "unit's special rules," which, by the very definition of a possessive noun, refer to any special rule which the unit has. Again, this would be regardless of the source because once again, no limitation is listed or implied, and "unit's special rules" is not used as a proper noun which would then need to be defined as well.

As to how you can possibly claim "his unit" is specific and at the same time admit there are multiple interpretations of what "his unit" means, is a mystery.

You say pg. 48 doesn't apply, and "his unit" is specific enough. Myself, the BRB, and the English language used to write the rules, all say that you are incorrect.

I am sorry you don't agree.

This will be my judgment in tournament play, unless FAQed.

I do ask you to realize that these decisions do not come lightly or easily.

You say pg. 48 doesn't apply, and "his unit" is specific enough. Myself, the BRB, and the English language used to write the rules, all say that you are incorrect.

Summed up, I am right because I read better, and you are wrong, because you read not good.


Wow


...that is all folks.

To be fair, reading comprehension does play a rather large role when debating written rules.

If you feel that even this statement is incorrect, then perhaps a video game would be better suited for you, rather than arguing on the internet about a written document.

There's a reason that English is taught all 12 years of primary education.

Personification of the English language aside, I think we all can agree that the wording could have been better. No offense to Phil of course.

Trekari wrote:To be fair, reading comprehension does play a rather large role when debating written rules.

Yes. That's why I've had 1) a Deldar player, 2) a teacher in English and 3) the redshirts in two local GW stores tell me that a Dark Eldar Succubus with a Drug Dispenser gives the bonus to all his squad, as many as 30 Wyches. None of them could tell me where the rules for using a dispenser in a squad are, but all vigorously defended "the way it's been done here since time immemorial".

But back on topic. The basic rulebook covers the basics. A Codex modifies the basics for models in certain cases... And GW is a glorified toy-maker that tries to sell a few more toys by publishing rules for a miniatures battle game. They´re not perfect, at least not when it comes to writing.

padixon wrote:

You say pg. 48 doesn't apply, and "his unit" is specific enough. Myself, the BRB, and the English language used to write the rules, all say that you are incorrect.

Summed up, I am right because I read better, and you are wrong, because you read not good.

I could have told you Trekari's argument consisted soley of "I'm right because I say so" several pages ago...

Trekari wrote:To be fair, reading comprehension does play a rather large role when debating written rules.

If you feel that even this statement is incorrect, then perhaps a video game would be better suited for you, rather than arguing on the internet about a written document.

There's a reason that English is taught all 12 years of primary education.

Okay I'm calling BS on you
The fact that ALL of your arguments on this subject Has been see PG 48 of the BRB
I thought I would give you a nudge in that you were getting a bit too involved in your..debate.
Your english lessons are a joke. Anyone with the slightest education could see the flaws it those .
The rules are clear and simple. It is only your Idea that any ability is somehow a Special Rule.
Wargear are not special rules. Special Rules are laid out with the Units army list. Thats it. Just the rules in the army list
yes, FNP is a USR but guess what, because it is granted by wargear it does not invoke the pg. 48 IC rules.
sorry you have had to repeat yourself 20 times but if you had bothered to repond to the people pointing out the weakness' and flaws in your debate maybe you wouldn't be spouting the same line over and over.

Trekari wrote:
When you purchase the Painboy, he gives his unit FNP.
The unit now has FNP.
By definition, FNP is now one of the unit's special rules, because they HAVE it. Possessive nouns ftw.
IC goes to join the unit, they have FNP, he does not.
FNP doesn't say it is to be conferred to ICs, and for that matter, neither does the wargear.
He joins the unit, but does not get FNP for this reason.

That is the absolute end of the procedure allowed for making the decision as to whether an attached IC gets a special rule from a unit. All you have done to refute the possessive noun issue is claim that language doesn't matter.

And according to a lot of us, this is where your logic is flawed ... I'm sure you can see where we are coming from?

The unit never HAS FNP, because they lose it when the painboy dies. If they should HAVE it, they should still have the ability even if the painboy dies, because according to you they seem to GAIN it when the painboy is purchased? IMO they are granted the use of the special rule as long as the painboy is alive. Semantics? Yes. But an important distinction according to me personally.

And for the record, I cannot possibly comprehend the heated discussions going on here as it is not really game-breaking (not like outflanking land raiders at least ), and if you are a bit objective about it, you can easily see that it could get ruled either way in an FAQ. The way things are written now, there IS no clear answer, so let's just leave it at that shall we?

SeattleDV8 wrote:

Trekari wrote:To be fair, reading comprehension does play a rather large role when debating written rules.

If you feel that even this statement is incorrect, then perhaps a video game would be better suited for you, rather than arguing on the internet about a written document.

There's a reason that English is taught all 12 years of primary education.

Okay I'm calling BS on you
The fact that ALL of your arguments on this subject Has been see PG 48 of the BRB
I thought I would give you a nudge in that you were getting a bit too involved in your..debate.
Your english lessons are a joke. Anyone with the slightest education could see the flaws it those .
The rules are clear and simple. It is only your Idea that any ability is somehow a Special Rule.
Wargear are not special rules. Special Rules are laid out with the Units army list. Thats it. Just the rules in the army list
yes, FNP is a USR but guess what, because it is granted by wargear it does not invoke the pg. 48 IC rules.
sorry you have had to repeat yourself 20 times but if you had bothered to repond to the people pointing out the weakness' and flaws in your debate maybe you wouldn't be spouting the same line over and over.

My english lessons are a joke? Powerful rebuttal. Go ahead and actually provide proof that I'm wrong. I'll wait. "Anyone with the slightest education could see the flaws" is not proof.

I've never said any ability is a special rule. If you're going to argue against my position, make sure you get it right. I believe I've stated it enough times to where this should not be difficult.

YOU believe that wargear-conferred special rules aren't covered by pg. 48. I've shown they are. Again, refute the English involved if you feel you can. Otherwise, my argument stands, and yours is "but you're wrong."

Not a single person, yourself included, has disproved the language involved.

tom_ep:

The Painboy confers FNP to the unit. Thus, while he is alive, they do have FNP as one of their special rules. Does Dok's Tools say "He confers the ability to use FNP?" No, it says "The Painboy confers the FNP ability to his unit."

Take a look at 5th SM Apothecary's if you don't believe the unit has FNP while they are alive.

As for not being game-breaking, I disagree with that as well. Taking your interpretation, and ignoring the language involved that proves you are incorrect, this is what we are left with:

Ghazghkull + 9 Nobz + Painboy would all have FNP.

Mad Dok + 29 'Ard Boyz + Nob would also all have FNP.

785+ pts worth of models all having FNP because nobody paid attention to the English language.

Trekari wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:

Trekari wrote:To be fair, reading comprehension does play a rather large role when debating written rules.

If you feel that even this statement is incorrect, then perhaps a video game would be better suited for you, rather than arguing on the internet about a written document.

There's a reason that English is taught all 12 years of primary education.

Okay I'm calling BS on you
The fact that ALL of your arguments on this subject Has been see PG 48 of the BRB
I thought I would give you a nudge in that you were getting a bit too involved in your..debate.
Your english lessons are a joke. Anyone with the slightest education could see the flaws it those .
The rules are clear and simple. It is only your Idea that any ability is somehow a Special Rule.
Wargear are not special rules. Special Rules are laid out with the Units army list. Thats it. Just the rules in the army list
yes, FNP is a USR but guess what, because it is granted by wargear it does not invoke the pg. 48 IC rules.
sorry you have had to repeat yourself 20 times but if you had bothered to repond to the people pointing out the weakness' and flaws in your debate maybe you wouldn't be spouting the same line over and over.

My english lessons are a joke? Powerful rebuttal. Go ahead and actually provide proof that I'm wrong. I'll wait. "Anyone with the slightest education could see the flaws" is not proof.

I've never said any ability is a special rule. If you're going to argue against my position, make sure you get it right. I believe I've stated it enough times to where this should not be difficult.

Brother, the only thing you *have proven* is that you have a complete lack of respect for other people and their opinions and that your so completely full of yourself.

We have shown you are re-rebuttals with proof, and you claim you've seen none, you claim we don't understand the English language, and *many* primary English speakers/readers have decided against you, to include John Spencer, tournament judges, and 5 years of gaming by the game makers themselves.

Surely, we are all wrong and you are right. Not to be insulting and to provide *constructive* criticism; *you* need to re-evaluate your stance and/or write it in such a way that your *ENTIRE* stance is not just I can read better than you, I am an English expert, and you are all wrong because I say so.

It is impossible to argue with a wall, sorry brother.

Trekari VS The World!

ding ding!

Seriously Trekari, its getting to the point where your making yourself look foolish.

If you don't believe "unit's special rules" is a possessive noun referring to special rules the unit has, then by all means, prove your point. I'm sure at this point you will try to argue that it only refers to special rules listed in the back of the Codex, at which point I'd ask where that limitation to pg. 48's rule is mentioned.

I've also asked you for your "5 years" evidence which you so casually toss around, and you've provided nothing. Human society by and large thought for thousands of years that the world was flat. That belief also turned out to be wrong, so I'd say the length of time you believe something has nothing to do with being correct. Don't bring claims into an argument that you are not prepared to support with evidence.

I on the other hand, have provided evidence for every one of my claims, including the English lessons you're so worked up about. They were not intended to be condescending until the fourth or fifth times I posted them. A lot of people miss such things, and it happens to be a rather critical point of the discussion.

If you don't like my stance or the way I've conveyed it, you are welcome to ignore my posts. Part of my position is based on the language itself, and I'm not about to change my stance just because it happens to upset you.

Here is a list of your options at this point:

1) You can accept that the language itself shows I am correct as I have proven.
2) You can refute the language used and try to prove I am wrong.
3) You can stay on the bandwagon that I have proven nothing, and my argument consists of "I'm right because I say so," while ignoring the substance of my posts.
4) You can click the Ignore button found just to the lower-right of this sentence.

To assist you in refuting my position, here is a brief summary:

1) pg. 48: "special rules" is not used as a proper noun, nor defined to limit its scope to a specific source of special rules.

2) pg. 48: "unit's special rules" is also not used as a proper noun, which would then refer specifically to a certain type and/or source depending on how GW defined it.

3) pg. 48: "unit's" is a possessive noun, which means something the unit has.

4) Therefore, "unit's special rules" refers to any and all sources of special rules that the unit has.

5) You cannot use something you do not have. i.e. I can't use my laptop if I don't have it.

6) The Painboy confers (gives) FNP to his unit.

7) The unit now has FNP while the Painboy is alive. Another example of this is in the SM codex Apothecary.

8) An IC goes to join the unit, we check pg. 48 whenever this happens, and find that the unit has FNP, while the IC may not.

9) pg. 48: "unless specified in the [special] rule itself....are not conferred.

10) FNP is the special rule, and it has no mention of conferring to an IC who joins a unit with it, nor does it mention a unit gaining it from an IC.

11) pg. 48 lists exactly one method for making this determination, and nowhere does it mention to check wargear later on to see if it's conferred anyways. If the special rule itself doesn't say anything about it, then the determination is made and the rule is NOT conferred in either direction.

Assuming you make it through each of those:

12) I have provided examples where even wargear is specific when it is meant to convey a bonus of any kind to a unit and/or IC other than the unit who purchased it.

13) I have also provided a perfectly valid definition of "unit" to which the Painboy's wargear would apply to, which does not specifically mention anything about characters.

Its over Trek, you can save your typie fingers

Frenzy wrote:Trekari VS The World!

ding ding!

Seriously Trekari, its getting to the point where your making yourself look foolish.

The weakest argument is one attacking the writer of the opposing opinion. Good hypocrisy though.

From all I can see, Trekari is correct and now we're down to attacking his personality and flaming. I've applied his logic at the local store, and so far it's been unable to be negated. The only real rebuttal is ork players bitching.

"Is the IC in the unit?"

"Yes"

"Do the Painboy Doc Tools give FNP to the Unit?"

"Yes"

I can understand how hard this is to follow, but stay with me...

"Does the IC get FNP from the Painboss Doc Tools?"

"Yes"

"Why?"

"The IC is in the unit that is activly being given FNP to the it (the unit) by the Painboss Doc Tools."

I know we will not agree on this so I will no longer post on this thread. But really, trying to over-rule the rules of select equipment under the p.48 is a stretch. There is nothing to bridge the two.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:"Is the IC in the squad?"

"Yes"

"Do the Painboy Doc Tools give FNP to the Unit?"

"Yes"

"Do the Painboy Doc Tools give FNP to the squad?"

"No"

I can understand how hard this is to follow, but stay with me...

"Does the IC get FNP from the Painboss Doc Tools?"

"No"

"Why?"

"The IC is in the squad that is activly being given FNP to the it (the unit) by the Painboss Doc Tools."

I know we will not agree on this so I will no longer post on this thread. But really, trying to over-rule the rules of select equipment under the p.48 is a stretch. There is nothing to bridge the two.

Nothing but logic, english, and a few edits.

LordWaffles wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:"Is the IC in the squad?"

"Yes"

"Do the Painboy Doc Tools give FNP to the Unit?"

"Yes"

"Do the Painboy Doc Tools give FNP to the squad?"

"No"

I can understand how hard this is to follow, but stay with me...

"Does the IC get FNP from the Painboss Doc Tools?"

"No"

"Why?"

"The IC is in the squad that is activly being given FNP to the it (the unit) by the Painboss Doc Tools."

I know we will not agree on this so I will no longer post on this thread. But really, trying to over-rule the rules of select equipment under the p.48 is a stretch. There is nothing to bridge the two.

Nothing but logic, english, and a few edits.

I am pretty sure I read rules about IC joining units. It used the word units. Units can have IC in them. Are you hearing the word unit yet?
But hey, if we want to just replace words, then why have rules at all?

Look, this is going on and on. For 5 long years of WH40k this rule has been around.

And it wasn't an issue until now due to rule Easter Egg hunting.

Lets drop this, lock this thread, because this is going no where now, just in circles.

Play how you want. But when you are at a tournament and you bring this up, don't be surprised when you get the lol face.

The INAT FAQ, written by the best and brightest minds that Dakka has to offer, and from which GW has shamelessly cut-and-pasted in the past, has decreed that an IC gains Feel-No-Pain from a Painboy. Furthermore, the INAT council has decreed that Mad Doc Grotsnik confers Feel-No-Pain to the unit he joins (a.k.a. as "his unit"). For the full 90+ page document check out the thread in the News forum.


here: http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf pages 54-55 for the FAQs relevant to this thread.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

I am pretty sure I read rules about IC joining units. It used the word units. Units can have IC in them. Are you hearing the word unit yet?
But hey, if we want to just replace words, then why have rules at all?

So a single unit(model) joins another unit(squad). When you fired off the rebuttal, did you even consider what you meant? Just because the ic hops in with his warmates doesn't mean he's permanently attached(As with BT retinues), nor does he count as an upgraded character in the unit he joined. He is his own unit and unless they faq otherwise, that's just the way it is.

And you're absolutely correct. Whenever we say 'join' we -should- be saying 'forever conjoined with another model in the selected unit, thus losing it's own status of being a SEPARATE unit'. That way orks can continue to cheat their way to a talentless victory.

olympia wrote:The INAT FAQ, written by the best and brightest minds that Dakka has to offer, and from which GW has shamelessly cut-and-pasted in the past, has decreed that an IC gains Feel-No-Pain from a Painboy. Furthermore, the INAT council has decreed that Mad Doc Grotsnik confers Feel-No-Pain to the unit he joins (a.k.a. as "his unit"). For the full 90+ page document check out the thread in the News forum.


here: http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf pages 54-55 for the FAQs relevant to this thread.

Is it an official faq, published by GW? No?

Sorry. Dark councils of secrecy and lies do not a ruling make. Hell I could write an extensive, convoluted, incorrect summary where I arbitrarily decide fabius bile's point cost is a misprint and he actually costs fourteen points.

padixon wrote:Look, this is going on and on.

Play how you want. But when you are at a tournament and you bring this up, don't be surprised when you get the lol face.

Actually I'd be glad to bring this up in a tournament.
"Just check page 48."
"Ah yes, very clear and concise. Any rebuttal?"
"HE'S A MEANY D:"

on a tournament scene, it matters, but prolly you dont. so dont bother arguing if your stuck playing house rule games

That way orks can continue to cheat their way to a talentless victory

So now we found the root of your reason you support your reason. They are too good, I will nerf them by reading this rule to my benefit.

and

Actually I'd be glad to bring this up in a tournament.
"Just check page 48."
"Ah yes, very clear and concise. Any rebuttal?"
"HE'S A MEANY D:"

I call your bluff on this as well

LordWaffles statement is entirely correct: If you insist on ignoring the language used in order to take an incorrect interpretation of the rules, then you are cheating. You might be cheating deliberately, or through ignorance, but the end result is still cheating.

As for the "best and brightest minds Dakka has to offer," this is not a Nobel Peace prize speech, so let's leave the high and mighty praise out of the discussion. While I'm sure they spent a great deal of time writing the FAQ, they are not GW and their answers are no more official than any other house ruling committee. Being on the ruling council here at Dakka also does nothing to denote whether someone is more intelligent than another member.

Until such a time when all of my points can be refuted (which they have not been, despite the claims of some), I will let my argument sit and speak for itself.

So by your own words, you views on it have no more bearing than anybody elses.

You also go to say that it does nothing to denote wether someone is more intelligent than another member, yet your agruements repeditely state that others are below your understanding of the English language.

This argument seems rather astonishing to me: the rule on page 48 is quite simple, that in order for an IC to benefit from a "special rule" of a joined unit, said rule must explicitly state that it applies to attached characters. Trek has pointed this out several times, and I can scarcely blame him for becoming a bit peeved by the nature of the counter-argument... which seems to boil down to "disregard the rule on page 48 when special rules are derived from gear".

Disturbingly, both sides a right: The main rule book supports Trekari, while it is increasingly clear that the various Codecii have been written with a "loose" grasp of the rules ("loose" here being used in the same fashion that "Unhealthy" might be used to describe the condition of a syphilitic leper).

For example, consider the "Squad Icons" under "Icons of Chaos", page 81, Chaos Space Marines Codex: the Icons of Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh and Tzeentch all include the specific disclaimer "All models in the unit, except independent characters joining the unit". Why? The p.48 rule clearly indicates an IC wouldn't receive a "special rule" (as Marks of Chaos appear to be) in the first place, why include a disclaimer unless the author believed the opposite?

Contrariwise, for those advancing the 'wargear trumps p.48' position, what in the main rulebook reasonably leads to this conclusion?

I Think Trek and Buzzsaw have this right.

as for best and brightest... thats a big claim.

Trekari wrote:LordWaffles statement is entirely correct: If you insist on ignoring the language used in order to take an incorrect interpretation of the rules, then you are cheating. You might be cheating deliberately, or through ignorance, but the end result is still cheating.

As for the "best and brightest minds Dakka has to offer," this is not a Nobel Peace prize speech, so let's leave the high and mighty praise out of the discussion. While I'm sure they spent a great deal of time writing the FAQ, they are not GW and their answers are no more official than any other house ruling committee. Being on the ruling council here at Dakka also does nothing to denote whether someone is more intelligent than another member.

Until such a time when all of my points can be refuted (which they have not been, despite the claims of some), I will let my argument sit and speak for itself.

Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

enmitee wrote:
on a tournament scene, it matters, but prolly you dont. so dont bother arguing if your stuck playing house rule games

Was that another personal attack without merit? Wow. No wonder Trekari has felt the need to subdue most of his english to barter words with you.

In either case, it seems that my bluff has been called by someone with an inaccurate grasp of the rules. So after I, Trekari, or someone else prove you incorrect on this, what exactly will you do? Just yell that you call my bluff and storm out? Mark my sportsmanship as a big ol' goose egg? Feel free.

And the ork army is already a pretty talentless win, as is chaos. The list practically writes itself and playing it is just: move squads into things you don't like. I'm unsure how you can really be considered a gamer when all you're practicing is 'mimicry'.

yea... thats why I haven't been playing orks recently....

However. I think its time this thread became locked.

Buzzsaw does make a good point. Some wargear makes a point of stating that ICs won't get the benefits. Either the authors never heard of pg 48 or they believe the wargear in a Codex normally overrides the main rulebook. Well, we all know that GW copy-pastes entire sections of text without regard for changing editions or new codexes.

A little question though... Pg 48 only says an IC joining a unit won't get the unit's special rules. What happens when an IC that grants special stuff joins a unit with another IC already attached (or just joins another IC)?

olympia wrote:Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Interesting argument... I had not considered the merits of the consensus argument, having momentarily forgotten the guiding principle that the truth is what most people agree it to be. Oh, wait a minute...

So, having found that the phrase "his unit" satisfies the requirement for the p.48 rule for "specified in the rule itself (as in the "stubborn" special rule)", can you show the point contrariwise? That is, can you provide an example of a peice of wargear that provided the benefits of a special rule to a unit that would not also meet the standard you have set with the "his unit" wording?

Since I have already provided you with an example, no points for effort there: Icons of Chaos: Squad Icons. The rules for these pieces of wargear explicitly exempt attached ICs from the squad's special rules; as I have pointed out, it is clear that the authors of these Chaos Codex rules were operating under an understanding of the IC-squad special rule interaction opposite to the clear language of the rule as presented on p.48.

As for stubbornness, are you seriously claiming that there is no conflict between the p.48 rule and the rule at issue? That "his unit" is truly sufficiently specific to satisfy? I fear you may find that denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

olympia wrote:Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

Provocative... so, having proposed that the problem here is a disconnect between the main rule authors and Codex authors, a melange of misunderstand/could not predict/bad editing/poor QC on the part of GW, you now would ask that Trek wager on GW being able to produce a FAQ actually representative of their rules? Not at all unreasonable, given the sterling understanding of the rules their judges and previous FAQs have evidenced...

olympia wrote:Trekari,
Your argument is simple. You hold that "his unit" is not compelling language to confer FNP. That's it. There's nothing more to your argument than your opinion that the language is not compelling. You can dress it up in tortuous reasoning and insults about reading comprehension but your argument is simple. The vast majority of people find that "his unit" is compelling; you (oh, and buzzsaw and frig) do not. You are indeed correct that stubbornness is an irrefutable position.

Here's what I propose. A simple wager. If an official GW FAQ is published that states that either Mad Doc Grotsnik confers FNP to a unit or a Painboy confers FNP to an attached IC you buy me an army strike force of my choice. If the FAQ is in your favor then I buy you an army strike force. Your arrogance in this thread has been remarkable and I'm offering you a chance to put your dakka where your mouth is.

With all due respect, that is not the entirety of my argument in any way, shape or form. On page 11, I posted a step-by-step list of what my argument consists of. Please do visit that post and read for yourself every argument I've listed out.

As for the "vast majority" of people believing that is compelling terminology, I once again ask for proof of any claim. I highly doubt you have a poll with every 40k members input to provide, so let's just drop the whole "everyone agrees with me" attitude since it cannot be proven by either side.

As for the statement that "his unit" is specific enough: no, I do not think it meets the phrasing of the example given, or other special rules, by any stretch of the imagination. Something that a dozen posters have yet to comment on (because it destroys their argument), is this simple question:

If "his unit" has two valid definitions, one being in the back of the Codex under "Unit Composition" and the other being that same listing, but with an attached IC, how can that possibly be specific?

When you get past that point, I'd ask for you to look at the example given for pg. 48, along with the other half-dozen examples of other special rules that I've mentioned, and honestly compare the wording between "his unit" and those rules. "His unit" doesn't even come close to the level that GW has set up (through their own example) of what "specified in the rule itself" is supposed to resemble.

As for your wager - if you think I'm stupid enough to bet money on GAMES WORKSHOP of all companies writing a rule clarification, then why do you even care what I think? I'd sooner bet money that Obama is actually going to do a single positive thing for this country, than place bets on GW rule-writers. I thought that GW's incompetence was the one thing that EVERYONE in the YMDC forum can agree on.

InquisitorFabius:

I said that being on the rules council here does nothing to determine whether someone is more intelligent than another member. Pointing out comprehension issues however, does lend something to the discussion. I cannot change whether members that I interact with are capable of critical reading or not, but I can do my best to point out the language involved when they are obviously overlooking it, or ignorant of the English language itself. Note that I don't find being ignorant to necessarily mean that someone is an idiot, however when the language is clarified and someone spends their time to explain why the language means what it does, and the only argument they get in return is "but you're wrong..." Well, forgive me for being short and condescending at that point.

If this thread is to be locked, that is fine with me. I've done everything I can to explain the language involved, along with every relevant rule, to support and prove my position on this issue. There is nothing more I can do, short of dragging some people in front of an English professor, to explain to my opposition where they are wrong.

The ONLY rebuttal I've received on this issue has been "you're wrong" and "pg. 48 doesn't apply to wargear special rules." Stating simply that I am wrong is a laughable position to take during a debate without any evidence to support it, and nobody has been able to prove that the language on pg. 48 is meant to apply only to specific types or sources of special rules, whereas I have provided evidence that it applies to any and all sources based on the language involved. Going further than that, i've shown where "his unit" is not specific, and thus cannot possibly be construed to sufficiently meet the definition of "specified in the rule itself." Lastly I have shown that even wargear is specific when it is meant to convey a bonus of any kind to a unit other than the one who purchased and/or carries it.

As far as debating goes, my evidence carries a LOT more weight than someone saying I'm wrong without a shred of evidence to support their position.

Merry Christmas.

Two definitions? Last time it was at least 5.

What you keep listing are the various models that can make up a unit. But what your implying is that an IC joined to a unit is somehow a different kind of unit, but can you point to a rule that supports this stance or is it opinion?

Trekari wrote:I've done everything I can to explain the language involved, along with every relevant rule, to support and prove my position on this issue. There is nothing more I can do, short of dragging some people in front of an English professor, to explain to my opposition where they are wrong.

Do forgive me for being an ass, but GW writing has never been much to cheer for in the proper English departement either. I've even had a teacher in English explain why the text about Dark Eldar Combat Drugs means every single Wych in a squad gets the effects of a Succubus buying a Drug Dispenser. And yet that teacher (and the Deldar player, and the Redshirts) couldn't drag up the rulebook entry for actually using the dispenser in a squad.

The problem is GW copy-pasting stuff instead of actually checking what they'd need to update.

Frenzy, it doesn't surprise me anymore that you don't understand the rules in the BRB, seeing as how you don't even read my own posts with adequate comprehension.

Earlier you asked about the definition of "unit" and I gave some to you.

Now you question my definitions of "his unit" and appear to be asking me to make YOUR point for you? Christ dude, pay attention.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition. That is part of my argument.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition, along with attached ICs. That is YOUR argument. I'm not going to make your argument for you, as I've already explained a multitude of times why your argument falls on its face.

You keep complaining that my argument consists of my being able to read and interpret the language better, yet time and time again you prove that you do in fact have some issues with understanding sentences.

Spetulhu -

Earlier you asked a question about IC's joining a unit that already has an attached IC. I can't give you a "best practices" answer that does not involve at least SOME substitution of words. In practice, RAW, there would generally be no conferred of IC special rules to other ICs, because most of them do not mention 'characters who have this confer it to other characters' or something similar. However I believe if you substitute ONE of the characters into "unit" and look at the special rules, you will find the sequence necessary to figure out who gets what.

Make no mistake though, IC's joining other ICs gets ugly, quick. My bottom line would be that if an IC would normally give it to a "unit they join," that they would give it to an IC, as that is a type of unit.

As for GW not always being the best: I agree. However we cannot simply assume that they are wrong and go about with a wicked smile on our face re-writing all the rules we disagree with. That is a very poor assumption. In some cases where a given rule has absolutely no use without errata to change the wording a bit, such as Shrike's "See, But Remain Unseen" special rule.

That special rule, absolutely requires errata to change it to proper, pg. 48-abiding structure. There is no way that ability works at all, unless it is meant to confer to units he attaches to. Now, whether that is meant to apply to ICs he attaches to is anyone's guess.

Trekari wrote:Make no mistake though, IC's joining other ICs gets ugly, quick. My bottom line would be that if an IC would normally give it to a "unit they join," that they would give it to an IC, as that is a type of unit.

Yes, and this is where I think the rules writers had a break-down. There's a line in pg 48 copied straight from the previous edition and no thought as to how that will work with the new version of other rules. If an IC would normally give it to a lone IC they join... why would it suddenly not apply to an IC in a larger unit they join? It just doesn't make sense even if there's a rule to point out.

I've got a suspicion that medi-packs were changed to FNP for a single unit not in order to nerf ICs but in order to kick down the traited marine armies that massed hard-hitting elite units around a couple of command squads with apothecaries. Unfortunately no one remembered the rules for characters and USRs. I'll offer to dice it off with my group if there's a problem - just can't stand spending three hours debating rules when we could be playing.

Since I can't sleep anyway...

here's how I'd resolve the unit + 2 ICs question:

Let's refer to the 'regular' unit as A
IC #1 is B
IC #2 is C

First, when B joins A, we simply treat the rules as normal. Hopefully this procedure is clear.

When C goes to join the combined A+B unit, we have to look at things a bit differently.

First, we'd check the A+C combo, just as we did A+B. After that is settled, we'd look at B+C, with one catch. For the moment, instead of treating B as an Independent Character, we would call B a 'unit' and apply the rules. i.e. If a special rule says an IC would normally confer the bonus to a unit he joins, then C would give it to B (as well as A, but we've already determined that). This is because an Independent Character IS a unit of one model.

Likewise, we'd check if any of B's special rules would normally confer to an Independent Character, and if so, C gets them.

Then you just switch B back to "Independent Character" and make C the "unit" and go through the process again.

Hopefully that made sense. There is however, one rather large caveat: If you ran across a special rule that actually mentioned it would confer to a unit, but would not confer to an IC, then you have a problem and would have to check the original source of the special rule to see who ended up with it after all.

If you stick to the back of the book's listing as the only definition of unit for the purpose of special rules, I think it only fair that you also draw your definitions of special rules from there. Each of your units also has a listing of what special rules it is given. This does not include abilities given by wargear. I believe that Trekari pointed out this passage as evidence that 'ability' and 'special rule' were interchangeable 'If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.' (p75 BRB, under the FNP special rule).

Dok's tools- 'He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit' 'p38, Ork codex'.

This USR passage gives you clear instructions on how to handle a unit with the FNP ability or special rule. Page 48 would not apply from a strict reading, as this is not a special rule of the unit.

I can think of no unit special rule that can be lost by taking one casualty. An Ork has Mob Rule up until the last model dies. The last Space Marine standing has 'And they shall know no fear'. This is even true of Space Marine special characters despite the obvious grammar error of applying 'they' to an individual. Plague Marines possess FNP until the last bloated pusbag bites the bullet. If Nobs had FNP, then the loss of a Painboy would not take that USR from them. Short of destroying a unit, the rulebook provides no way for a unit to lose a unit special rule.

When one model gives a rule or ability to a unit, we should not be confused and decide that the rule is now a unit rule. The unit is simply under the influence of a model's rule, which can be lost if the model dies. These examples were listed by Moz when he started this thread, before it dissolved into bickering over definitions and splitting hairs. This is only an interpretation of a gray area. Trekari is quite correct, anything short of a published FAQ is nothing but an interpretation of a gray area. There's no sense in getting upset because someone disagrees with you, or belittling them. Hopefully anyone still debating this topic is interested in pursuing the truth concealed by GW's awkward wording and slippery synonyms. The idea of 'winning' this argument must have evaporated 5 or 6 pages ago.

Gitzbitah wrote:If you stick to the back of the book's listing as the only definition of unit for the purpose of special rules, I think it only fair that you also draw your definitions of special rules from there. Each of your units also has a listing of what special rules it is given. This does not include abilities given by wargear. I believe that Trekari pointed out this passage as evidence that 'ability' and 'special rule' were interchangeable 'If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.' (p75 BRB, under the FNP special rule).

I brought this up because people were arguing that only the special rules listed in the back of the Codex were valid for pg. 48, a limitation which pg. 48 does not imply in any way, shape or form. It was my point that if they were going to use the back of the Codex to apply an unwritten restriction on what constituted one of the unit's special rules, then they should also use the back of the book for what defined members of "his unit." The old, "whats good for the goose..." argument. Of course, nobody wanted to apply the back of the book in that circumstance, because it wouldn't do their argument any favors. Selectively applying rules is not how you play a game.

Dok's tools- 'He confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit' 'p38, Ork codex'.

This USR passage gives you clear instructions on how to handle a unit with the FNP ability or special rule. Page 48 would not apply from a strict reading, as this is not a special rule of the unit.

But the unit does have FNP while the Painboy/Apothecary is alive, and thus via the English language, it is one of the unit's special rules.

I can think of no unit special rule that can be lost by taking one casualty. An Ork has Mob Rule up until the last model dies. The last Space Marine standing has 'And they shall know no fear'. This is even true of Space Marine special characters despite the obvious grammar error of applying 'they' to an individual. Plague Marines possess FNP until the last bloated pusbag bites the bullet. If Nobs had FNP, then the loss of a Painboy would not take that USR from them. Short of destroying a unit, the rulebook provides no way for a unit to lose a unit special rule.

If my Interrogator-Chaplain dies, he, and the unit he was attached to, loses the Litanies of Hate special rule. (Dark Angels) He's not immune to Instant Death, so even a single unsaved wound can kill him and take away a special rule. The 5th ed. SM Codex Apothecary is another example - while he is alive the unit has FNP, but when he dies, it goes away. Upgrade characters are another example, if Snikrot dies, then the Ambush special rule is taken away from the unit as well. Your argument is based on the idea that only the special rules listed in the back of the Codex are "unit special rules," and yet the language on pg. 48 disagrees with you. There is no such thing as a Unit Special Rule, only special rules which the unit has.

When one model gives a rule or ability to a unit, we should not be confused and decide that the rule is now a unit rule. The unit is simply under the influence of a model's rule, which can be lost if the model dies. These examples were listed by Moz when he started this thread, before it dissolved into bickering over definitions and splitting hairs. This is only an interpretation of a gray area. Trekari is quite correct, anything short of a published FAQ is nothing but an interpretation of a gray area. There's no sense in getting upset because someone disagrees with you, or belittling them. Hopefully anyone still debating this topic is interested in pursuing the truth concealed by GW's awkward wording and slippery synonyms. The idea of 'winning' this argument must have evaporated 5 or 6 pages ago.

The rulebook makes no distinction between a special rule that is granted by any particular source, be it another model, an upgrade character, a piece of wargear, etc. If a unit has a special rule, from any source, then it is one of the "unit's special rules." That isn't a proper noun depicting a certain type or source of special rule. It is a possessive noun (which in and of itself is a misnomer, because a possessive noun immediately turns into an adjective), which means "special rules a unit has, possesses, or owns." Applying a limitation based on the source goes directly against the language used.

Trekari wrote:Frenzy, it doesn't surprise me anymore that you don't understand the rules in the BRB, seeing as how you don't even read my own posts with adequate comprehension.

Earlier you asked about the definition of "unit" and I gave some to you.

Now you question my definitions of "his unit" and appear to be asking me to make YOUR point for you? Christ dude, pay attention.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition. That is part of my argument.

"his unit" = what is listed in the back under Unit Composition, along with attached ICs. That is YOUR argument. I'm not going to make your argument for you, as I've already explained a multitude of times why your argument falls on its face.

You keep complaining that my argument consists of my being able to read and interpret the language better, yet time and time again you prove that you do in fact have some issues with understanding sentences.

So am I to take your personal attacks and lack of requested refrence to mean that you don't have a rule to support your stance?

Also your so cute when your angry, gimmie a kiss.

My "personal attacks" are observations of your demonstrated reading comprehension. You continue to have issues understanding simple sentences and basic (grade-school level) English. If you find it insulting that someone points this out, then perhaps you should remedy the problem by studying a bit.

For instance, now you appear to have difficulty in understanding the phrase "his unit."

It is your position, and thus your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition in the back of the Codex, along with attached ICs.

My position is that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition listed on pg. 98 of the Ork Codex. "His" is a possessive adjective, and the unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be a Painboy. Thus, according to the language which you have trouble grasping, "his unit" can refer to the unit which the Painboy is a part of, as listed in the Codex.

Get one of your parents to explain that to you, if you still have difficulty understanding this. I have not failed to provide evidence for any of my claims or positions. If you wish to support your position with some evidence, I would be pleasantly surprised.

**EDIT**

Let me further clarify something that you have also missed over a dozen times now. "His unit" could refer to either of those situations. It could mean just the Unit Composition in the Codex, or it could mean attached ICs as well. The part you fail to understand is that without specifics to clarify the meaning of that, you have absolutely no justification in overriding pg. 48 of the BRB. Since it could go either way, it obviously does not specify anything. As pg. 48 requires for something to be "specified in the rule itself," this does not meet the criteria both due to it's ambiguous wording, as well as not being "in the rule itself."

His unit = not specific
His unit = not in the special rule itself
Nowhere does it say wargear can override pg. 48's method or determining whether special rules of one unit are granted to an IC joining them (or vice-versa) anyway.
There is a unique game mechanic for determining whether an IC gets any of the unit's special rules upon joining them, therefore ICs are not simply considered a normal member of a unit for the purpose of special rules. If they were just normal members, then there would be no reason for the procedure and restrictions on pg. 48.

Do you get it yet? Come back with evidence to support your own position, or admit that your opinion is only partially supported by "his unit" and is completely unsupported by the rest of the rules and that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

Trekari wrote:My "personal attacks" are observations of your demonstrated reading comprehension. You continue to have issues understanding simple sentences and basic (grade-school level) English. If you find it insulting that someone points this out, then perhaps you should remedy the problem by studying a bit.

For instance, now you appear to have difficulty in understanding the phrase "his unit."

It is your position, and thus your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition in the back of the Codex, along with attached ICs.

My position is that "his unit" refers to the Unit Composition listed on pg. 98 of the Ork Codex. "His" is a possessive adjective, and the unit consists of 3-10 Nobz, one of which may be a Painboy. Thus, according to the language which you have trouble grasping, "his unit" can refer to the unit which the Painboy is a part of, as listed in the Codex.

Get one of your parents to explain that to you, if you still have difficulty understanding this. I have not failed to provide evidence for any of my claims or positions. If you wish to support your position with some evidence, I would be pleasantly surprised.

**EDIT**

Let me further clarify something that you have also missed over a dozen times now. "His unit" could refer to either of those situations. It could mean just the Unit Composition in the Codex, or it could mean attached ICs as well. The part you fail to understand is that without specifics to clarify the meaning of that, you have absolutely no justification in overriding pg. 48 of the BRB. Since it could go either way, it obviously does not specify anything. As pg. 48 requires for something to be "specified in the rule itself," this does not meet the criteria both due to it's ambiguous wording, as well as not being "in the rule itself."

His unit = not specific
His unit = not in the special rule itself
Nowhere does it say wargear can override pg. 48's method or determining whether special rules of one unit are granted to an IC joining them (or vice-versa) anyway.
There is a unique game mechanic for determining whether an IC gets any of the unit's special rules upon joining them, therefore ICs are not simply considered a normal member of a unit for the purpose of special rules. If they were just normal members, then there would be no reason for the procedure and restrictions on pg. 48.

Do you get it yet? Come back with evidence to support your own position, or admit that your opinion is completely unsupported by evidence.

But snookums, 'his unit' can include IC's because the BRB clearly lets IC's join units. If you want to say that 'his unit' only refers to the codex entry, then you have to prove it. Remember not only is 'his' a possessive adjective, but that section in the codex is in the present tense.

This makes 'his unit' specific enough if the intention is to give anyone in the unit FNP.

PG.48 has to exist to stop people saying that IC's from getting USR's from joining units such as plague marines.

As for asking my parents, that’s not exactly possible anymore.
However if you wish to concern yourself about my level of understanding of the English language then it might be worth you considering that I’m currently undertaking my second degree, believe in Occam’s razor, and I speak real English, not your soddomised US version of my great languge.

This thread has cleared moved beyond its best served by date. Am locking.