Me and a few friends had a game this weekend. It was a 3 way battle with 1850 points. I played Space Wolves and my other friend played Tau and my other buddy played orks. The table was set up to where everyone was hugging the edge. well the ork player was bringing Ghaz and a unit of kommandos with Snikrot. He said the Ghaz was going into Snikrots unit and the tau guy said that they can only outflank. But the ork player said that snikrot conferred the ability to Ghaz.

So you make the call does Ghaz get Snikrots ability?

Isn't outflanking lost when joined by an IC who doesn't have it?

I have heard that you can't do this. Something about how rules transfer to IC. Can't remember exactly what the argument was though.

purplefood wrote:Isn't outflanking lost when joined by an IC who doesn't have it?

Yes, this is correct. If the IC can't outflank, the unit he joins can't outflank either.

I believe everyone is thinking about Infiltrate. Infiltrate is lost when an IC without it is joined to a squad. Outflank is not a USR, so does not follow the same rules as for losing Infiltrate. Now Snikrot's special rule is just that, a special rule, not a USR. there is some debate as to if an IC can join his squad and do this. It would seem that it is RAW to let Ghaz outflank with Snikrot.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/304186.page

Technically Snikrot and his unit doesn't outflank but if ork player declares that they are outflanking with ghaz then it's illegal.

Not this again...
Yes RAW he can do it. This is because it is not outflanking it is Snikrots special rule which he confers to any UNIT he is in. If Ghazghkull is a part of this unit then he gets the benefits of it as well.

Oh lawds.

Yes, Ghaz can do this, RaW. (The Ambush thing that is, not Outflank)

Is it "fair"? I don't care! The rules say he can, so he can.

Oh lawds.

Yes, Ghaz can do this, RaW. (The Ambush thing that is, not Outflank)

Is it "fair"? I don't care! The rules say he can, so he can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say Snikrot's squad? Where in this does it claim independent characters are effected? In the rulebook it specifically states the IC's don't gain the rules of a unit unless it specifically says they do. In this case it does not.

JGrand wrote:

Oh lawds.

Yes, Ghaz can do this, RaW. (The Ambush thing that is, not Outflank)

Is it "fair"? I don't care! The rules say he can, so he can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say Snikrot's squad? Where in this does it claim independent characters are effected? In the rulebook it specifically states the IC's don't gain the rules of a unit unless it specifically says they do. In this case it does not.

The rulebook only talks about USRs.

Ambush is not a USR.

Ghazgul is joined to the unit, so is part of Snikrots unit. If he wasn't, he could be picked out in shooting (which he can't, because he is part of the unit).

Well to add to the question my friend playing Tau says that the IC doesnt join the unit till its on the field. So his arguement was that Ghaz doesnt get the ability because he isnt technically with the group until its on the table.

Daemon Eater wrote:Well to add to the question my friend playing Tau says that the IC doesnt join the unit till its on the field. So his arguement was that Ghaz doesnt get the ability because he isnt technically with the group until its on the table.

Except that that's not correct. In deployment, the IC doesn't join the unit until both are on the field.

However, when placed in reserve (which is how you use Snikrot's rule), the IC joins the unit as if it were on the field, and they come in from reserve together.

The rulebook only talks about USRs.

Ambush is not a USR.

Ghazgul is joined to the unit, so is part of Snikrots unit. If he wasn't, he could be picked out in shooting (which he can't, because he is part of the unit).

I'll have to double check that. I could have sworn under the Independent Character section it refers to all special rules. I also don't like people stretching the definition of the term "unit". Ghaz is not part of the unit, he is an IC joining a unit. By this logic I can join an IC to a Daemonically Possessed CSM squad and roll for the bonus rules that effect them too. I mean it does say "possessed unit" gets the bonus and those IC's are in the unit

Don't play to cheat, boys and girls

JGrand wrote:

The rulebook only talks about USRs.

Ambush is not a USR.

Ghazgul is joined to the unit, so is part of Snikrots unit. If he wasn't, he could be picked out in shooting (which he can't, because he is part of the unit).

I'll have to double check that. I could have sworn under the Independent Character section it refers to all special rules. I also don't like people stretching the definition of the term "unit". Ghaz is not part of the unit, he is an IC joining a unit. By this logic I can join an IC to a Daemonically Possessed CSM squad and roll for the bonus rules that effect them too. I mean it does say "possessed unit" gets the bonus and those IC's are in the unit

Don't play to cheat, boys and girls

Except that if an IC joins a unit of Possessed, it is no longer a "Possessed unit." It is now a "Possessed unit with an IC attached to it."

And the rules for ICs only reference USRs, not Special Rules in general. It says "special rules," but then goes on to reference several Universal Special Rules and call them Special Rules, which they are not. It even then points you to the USRs section. So either the rules for ICs and USRs are broken and don't work at all anyway (because they call Universal Special Rules "special rules"), or they only refer to USRs. I'd go with the latter.

I think I might agree: the IC rules (BRB, pg. 48) discuss special rules of which USRs are a subset. So if unit or character's rules do not say something like unit and any ICs joined then the rules are not passed on. So neither Infiltrate or Ambush is passed to joined ICs.

Homer

Except that if an IC joins a unit of Possessed, it is no longer a "Possessed unit." It is now a "Possessed unit with an IC attached to it."

How is this any different from Ghaz joining a unit? It's just you deciding what definition you like. Who's to say it's not a possessed unit anymore? I see a possessed unit still there. It's the same logic. A reasonable person says that it is Snikrot's unit with an attached IC. A WAAC d-bag says it's Snikrot's unit by his definition and outflanks them and the IC. You can sleaze loose definitions either way.

And the rules for ICs only reference USRs, not Special Rules in general. It says "special rules," but then goes on to reference several Universal Special Rules and call them Special Rules, which they are not. It even then points you to the USRs section. So either the rules for ICs and USRs are broken and don't work at all anyway (because they call Universal Special Rules "special rules"), or they only refer to USRs. I'd go with the latter.

I'm disappointed. As a strict RAW guy you should be all saying "special rules" meaning exactly what it says. Special rules refers to all special rules. That seems to be the intent because if not you get some broken stuff.

But in all seriousness this is a big case of GW oversight. I don't think IC's gain a unit's ability unless it states they do. If people want to debate the meaning of the term "unit" go ahead but at the end of the day as IC joining a unit is just that; a unit with an attached IC. Unless it says the IC gets the rule it does not.

If it is a friendly game, you can house rule how you want to treat Ghaz for the sake of Snikrot's special ability, as the conversation for the whole argument to have an IC join Snikrot's unit and be able to Ambush with them led around in circles.

If the ork player argues until the end of time to allow it, just let him do it and make sure everything moves away from the Snikrot squad as Ghaz has Mega armor and moves like a rock when he is not on the Waaagh!

Bottomline- come to an agreement with your friends. If you go to a tourney, ask the TO about this situation.

So by the same understanding a ic who joins a unit that has a model that confers fnp or hatred or what ever is cheap and cheating because the ic dissent have the ability until it joins the unit.special rules are not usr. Deal with it instead of crying when you get beat.if you know they are in reserve do something different with your deployment or figure out a way to counter it.or just cry about getting beat which is what all the loser, pour players do.

JGrand wrote:
I'm disappointed. As a strict RAW guy you should be all saying "special rules" meaning exactly what it says. Special rules refers to all special rules. That seems to be the intent because if not you get some broken stuff.

But in all seriousness this is a big case of GW oversight. I don't think IC's gain a unit's ability unless it states they do. If people want to debate the meaning of the term "unit" go ahead but at the end of the day as IC joining a unit is just that; a unit with an attached IC. Unless it says the IC gets the rule it does not.

Good thing Ambush isn't an ability of the unit then, it's an ability that is strictly snikrot's.
It says the unit he's with gets to do X, the IC is part of the unit... The end. No special rules are conferred or gained or lost... you just apply snikrot's rule like it says to.

And that is what happened but the question is for tournies. We want to figure this out for future refrence so that when he decides to bring this list he knows its legal. We dont have a GW store so all our tournies are independant, which makes it hard to argue about rules when no one works for the company that makes the game.

Daemon Eater wrote:And that is what happened but the question is for tournies. We want to figure this out for future refrence so that when he decides to bring this list he knows its legal. We dont have a GW store so all our tournies are independant, which makes it hard to argue about rules when no one works for the company that makes the game.

Is it perfectly legal? Yes.
Is it often considered an 'unfair' or 'beardy' move that people throw a fit over? Also yes.
Ask your tournament organizers ahead of time.

So by the same understanding a ic who joins a unit that has a model that confers fnp or hatred or what ever is cheap and cheating because the ic dissent have the ability until it joins the unit.special rules are not usr. Deal with it instead of crying when you get beat.if you know they are in reserve do something different with your deployment or figure out a way to counter it.or just cry about getting beat which is what all the loser, pour players do.

1. Punctuation please. That was awful.
2. Usually FNP is conferred by war gear. In many of those cases it is stated that it does effect IC's ex. Blood Chalice
3. No one is crying. An outflanking squad with Ghaz and Snikrot is around 450 points. It can come in and charge one unit (probably a vehicle). It kills that. Then it proceeds to get shot down. I could care less.

I would only not play against it because the rules don't allow it. I personally think it's a horrible idea and really, if a player was going to piss and moan I'd probably let them do it. Then I'd probably not play them again becasue anyone who is going to be such a baby and bend the rules for every minuscule advantage is not usually worth my time.

I play for fun...winning is second. When Warhammer becomes something I have to bring a lawyer to to argue the meaning of the words "unit" and "special rules" and whether that means "USR" only it's not fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Good thing Ambush isn't an ability of the unit then, it's an ability that is strictly snikrot's.
It says the unit he's with gets to do X, the IC is part of the unit... The end. No special rules are conferred or gained or lost... you just apply snikrot's rule like it says to.

Do upgrade characters rules automatically effect attached IC's without saying they do? Hmmm, I missed that.

It is a special rule that effects Snikrot's unit. Snikrot is an upgrade character to a unit. That is his unit. An IC joining the unit does not gain the special rule. As someone pointed out on p. 48 it discusses this.

As another example:
You have a squad of Marines with Lysander attached. A generic Captain with storm-bolter attaches during movement.
In the shooting phase the player chooses to use Lysanders "Bolter drill" special rule. Since the generic captain is attached to the same unit as Lysander, the captain may also take advantage of Lysander's rule and re-roll his failed hits.

The difference being that Snikrot is a unit upgrade and not an IC. However the same goes for Telion. If, for whatever reason, you had an IC attached to telions Squad, Telion can use his Special rule and confer BS6 onto the IC.

It's not that great of a tactic. Sure, you can [provided your jurisdiction says it's legal] split Ghaz off to destroy his own vehicle, and take your chances with defensive grenades with Snikrot and co (no nob with PK), but like Jgrand said, that's two vehicles, max, for ~450 points.

That's provided they come in turn 2, and not 5, and get to do anything.

It's not horrible, because you have an 18" threat range on every table edge (provided you waaagh), but it's not great either, as most things can counter it.

It's not that great of a tactic. Sure, you can [provided your jurisdiction says it's legal] split Ghaz off to destroy his own vehicle, and take your chances with defensive grenades with Snikrot and co (no nob with PK), but like Jgrand said, that's two vehicles, max, for ~450 points.

That's provided they come in turn 2, and not 5, and get to do anything.

It's not horrible, because you have an 18" threat range on every table edge (provided you waaagh), but it's not great either, as most things can counter it.

Even if he could hypothetically come in via outflanking, I don't believe that he could leave his unit that turn. So one target. But it's a moot point as you can't do it

As another example:
You have a squad of Marines with Lysander attached. A generic Captain with storm-bolter attaches during movement.
In the shooting phase the player chooses to use Lysanders "Bolter drill" special rule. Since the generic captain is attached to the same unit as Lysander, the captain may also take advantage of Lysander's rule and re-roll his failed hits.

The difference being that Snikrot is a unit upgrade and not an IC. However the same goes for Telion. If, for whatever reason, you had an IC attached to telions Squad, Telion can use his Special rule and confer BS6 onto the IC.

Yes, Lysander confers the ability on his unit. He is an independent character who has a rule that specifically states it works on the unit he joins. This has nothing to do with the current scenario. As for Tellion's squad it says "one friendly model in his squad". I could see this going either way. Luckily this will never happen.

JGrand wrote: A WAAC d-bag says it's Snikrot's unit by his definition and outflanks them and the IC. You can sleaze loose definitions either way.

How about we not insult people for enjoying the game differently to you, mkay?

There's nothing saying you can't put Ghaz in 2" away from the squad and therefore break coherency. I don't believe there are any reserve IC rules for that, which would suggest normal movement rules apply.

If you can bring in an IC from reserves, and break coherency, you can do it with Ghaz the exact same way.

But yea, most people won't allow it anyways so it's a moot point.

What I don't get is the constant referencing of wargear being a special circumstance over a special rule. There's no top secret rule that states "wargear>>>special rules". They're identical. The only thing that is special (according to some in the thread) is USRs - nothing to do with wargear.

How about we not insult people for enjoying the game differently to you, mkay?

Not attempting to. People are free to play however they want. I just think people who want to play rules lawyer all the time need to step back and realize that it's just a game.

There's nothing saying you can't put Ghaz in 2" away from the squad and therefore break coherency. I don't believe there are any reserve IC rules for that, which would suggest normal movement rules apply.

If you can bring in an IC from reserves, and break coherency, you can do it with Ghaz the exact same way.

But yea, most people won't allow it anyways so it's a moot point.

What? You aren't allowed to break coherency. This makes no sense at all. I don't know for sure (as I don't have the rules here) but I don't believe you are able to join or leave the turn you enter from reserves. You join or leave with IC's at the start of a movement phase and the start of the phase in this hypothetical case they are entering from off the table as a single unit. Therefore he wouldn't be able to. You can't just choose to not remain in coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

What I don't get is the constant referencing of wargear being a special circumstance over a special rule. There's no top secret rule that states "wargear>>>special rules". They're identical. The only thing that is special (according to some in the thread) is USRs - nothing to do with wargear.

Yes, war gear sometimes confers a special rule. The only difference referenced is that they specify that joining characters get the rule (in some cases). Which is exactly the point. They are both conferring special rules. It must state that it is conferred to joining IC's or it doesn't work on them.

JGrand wrote:Not attempting to. People are free to play however they want. I just think people who want to play rules lawyer all the time need to step back and realize that it's just a game.

Sure. And people also need to realise that different people enjoy the game in different ways, and the fact that someone prefers to read the rules a little more literally than you do doesn't make them deserving of being called names. As you say, it's just a game. So from here on in, please stick to discussing the rules, not the players.

JGrand wrote:
Yes, war gear sometimes confers a special rule. The only difference referenced is that they specify that joining characters get the rule (in some cases). Which is exactly the point. They are both conferring special rules. It must state that it is conferred to joining IC's or it doesn't work on them.

Right. Except I'm talking about those "some cases" where it doesn't specify, yet it is generally considered that ICs get them anyways.

I'm saying there isn't a line drawn for wargear and special rules.

A Painboy's Dok's Tools never state that any ICs get Feel No Pain - it just says "the unit". Yet it is universally regarded that a Warboss, or Ghaz, would gain the effects of FNP by being in that squad.

The Sanguinary Priest's Blood Chalice never states that it affects ICs in any fashion. It simply says "all units gain the effects".

Snikrot also says "the unit", and doesn't specifically mention the IC. Snikrot's ambush rule is just highlighted because of the sleaziness of the situation, but it's no different.

Right. Except I'm talking about those "some cases" where it doesn't specify, yet it is generally considered that ICs get them anyways.

I'm saying there isn't a line drawn for wargear and special rules.

Dok's Tools never state that any ICs get Feel No Pain - it just says "the unit". Yet it is universally regarded that a Warboss, or Ghaz, would gain the effects of FNP by being in that squad.

The Sanguinary Priest's Blood Chalice never states that it affects ICs in any fashion. It simply says "all units gain the effects".

Snikrot also says "the unit", and doesn't specifically mention the IC. Snikrot's ambush rule is just highlighted because of the sleaziness of the situation, but it's no different.

I just checked. Doc's Tools effect "the Painboy's unit". I usually come down on the side of his unit being the unit he was purchased with, not joined characters.

The Blood Chalice doesn't need to specify. It it a 6" range. Of course they would get it in this case.

I would say Doc's tools no, chalice yes. In the case of the SM honor guard squads that are taken with a SM HQ, then I would say the apothecary's FNP would effect the HQ. I'd have to look at this one though. I believe they are the same unit for game purposes but I'm not 100% here.

GW needs to fix this issue.

I can see how the Red Thirst wouldn't affect Librarians because they don't have the rule (and therefore how could they theoretically fall to the thirst if they are not prone to it), but fluff wise, a Painboy in an ICs squad would theoretically be able to patch up an IC just the same as another Nob.

Fluff =/= rules, but man they need to clean up the IC subsection in their rulebook. It just seems so arbitrary.

As for the Blood Chalice, why doesn't it need to specifiy? Is there some magic rule that states "bubbles can always affect ICs even though the BRB says that it needs to specifically state it can"? I don't remember ever seeing a "bubble" subsection in the rulebook.

GW needs to fix this issue.

I can see how the Red Thirst wouldn't affect Librarians because they don't have the rule (and therefore how could they theoretically fall to the thirst if they are not prone to it), but fluff wise, a Painboy in an ICs squad would theoretically be able to patch up an IC just the same as another Nob.

Fluff =/= rules, but man they need to clean up the IC subsection in their rulebook. It just seems so arbitrary.

It's pretty bad. I have seen some on here claim that the rules conferred by the war gear work though as they do not fall under the category of "special rules". So while the Libby couldn't get the Red Thirst from a unit, a Warboss joining a Nob unit gets FNP because it comes from war gear and not a special rule. I don't think this is correct though. At least I haven't seen the distinction made in the rulebook.

There is no distinction, and I've looked several times in the rulebook.

Wargear just confers a special rule. It's just a way to itemize (and cost) a special rule.

Then you have some people claiming USRs and SC Special Rules are completely different for some reason even though there's no basis in the rules for it.

::head explodes::

The wargear does not fall under the restrictions on special rules, as the unit has no special rules. An UC does, but the rules dont cover that.

You are also explicitly told, repeatedly, that the IC joins the unit. He is therefore part of Snikrots unit.

Yes, it is legal. Whether you think it is "fair" is irrelevant.

You are also ignoring that it could easily be a squadron of 3 vehicles, or a parking lot of IG manticores and hydras,

Magnalon: The difference is that USR are all listed in the BGB. Anything in that list is a USR, and is lost if an IC without that USR joins a squad with it.

The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.


JGrand: TRT is a tricky issue and we shouldn't dive into it too much in this thread. It's a bit distinct from this, though, because it's not a situation where only the sergeant gets TRT and if "passed", confers the change to the rest of the squad (including IC). Everyone in the squad has the special rule.

Grakmar wrote:
The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.

So what you're saying is there's no difference between Dok's Tool's FNP and Snikrot's Ambush, in regards to ICs?

That seems out of line with the ICs rule of "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work". I'm still trying to figure out if that ruling only applies to USRs or not.

Magnalon wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
The "wargear" issue isn't the fact that it's wargear. The issue is that the item or upgrade in question is only taken by 1 character, but it grants the ability to the rest of the unit. So, if there was an IC in that unit, the ability would be granted to him as well.

So what you're saying is there's no difference between Dok's Tool's FNP and Snikrot's Ambush, in regards to ICs?

That seems out of line with the ICs rule of "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work". I'm still trying to figure out if that ruling only applies to USRs or not.

Correct. I'm saying Tools granting FnP to the unit and Snikrot granting ambush to the unit both effect any IC that is part of that unit, for as long as they remain part of that unit.

And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

Grakmar wrote:
And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

Here's where people get confused, IMO.

Page 48 does not say "only USRs". It says "all special rules".

So neither would work according to the rules, because neither specifically say they affect ICs.

I think this is a fairly overlooked nuance - the ICs section only gives *examples* of *some* USRs and thus it cannot be implied that they are *only* talking about USRs. It states that there are *some* exceptions in the universal special rules section - that's it. You can't extrapolate from that "all special rules that are non-USRs work" - it's a bit of a stretch.

I'd like to see a response from Gwar!, in particular, who has stated previously that Red Thirst would not work on a Librarian IC despite being part of a unit, yet Ambush will - despite the fact that they are both special rules being applied to ICs in a unit, in the exact same manner.

However it does include ICs, as it states "the unit". Whcih is why it works (Doks Tools, Apothecary, etc)

The IC is part of the unit as soon as it joins, so is included in that phrase.

Correct. I'm saying Tools granting FnP to the unit and Snikrot granting ambush to the unit both effect any IC that is part of that unit, for as long as they remain part of that unit.

And, I believe the "it has to say it affects an IC or it doesn't work" only applies to USRs. Snikrot and the Dok both have special rules (not USR) that grant a USR to the entire unit. So, when you make your check of "Does the IC have the same USR as the squad?" the answer comes back as "Yes" because both items granted that USR to the IC.

It depends on your definition of "unit". Still, on p 48 I does say that joining IC's do not get the effects unless the rule says so. Technically neither of these rules say independent characters who join the unit get the rules. That is the issue I have.

My question, and this is specifically aimed at GWAR, is based on the inconsistency of how people rule this. For example Gwar was quick to say that "Red Thirst" is not conferred onto a joining IC. He was also quick to say ambush was conferred to a joining IC. There is no difference. They are both special rules that effect the "unit". If you allow one, you allow both.

Now compound the problem with war gear. Many times, like in the case of Doc's Tools, it confers the special rule on the Painboy's unit. A special rule conferred upon a unit is a unit's special rule. They are the same thing. I can see why people try to loophole this, but really war gear conferring a special rule to a unit is just giving that unit the special rule until specified. So again, unless IC's are included I don't see how they are assumed to get the rule.

Consistency. You can't just pick and choose what to allow and what not to allow. The rulebook is clear on p 48. IC's joining a unit do not gain the benefits of a special rule unless specified. In all of these cases people assume that the word "unit" refers to a joined IC as well. I would say based on the rulebook this isn't the case. There are rules which do state that joined IC's get the benefit. Because of this and page 48 it seems clear that if it doesn't say you do then you don't.

If you do want to play with the loose definition of the all encompassing word unit, then you allow: FNP, the Doc's tools, the Red Thirst, the Ambush, Daemokin, and any others that are use the word "unit" and don't specify either way. The problem I have is that it is a slippery slope that leads to dicey situations. If people play it then play if consistently.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

However it does include ICs, as it states "the unit". Whcih is why it works (Doks Tools, Apothecary, etc)

The IC is part of the unit as soon as it joins, so is included in that phrase.

But page 48 specifically says you do not get the rule unless it says "joining IC's gain this". The majority of special rules and USR's do not specify. There are those however, that do. Therefore, there is a process of specification that is being ignored when people just assume "unit" means joing IC's. This is clearly not the intent or the case.

Magnalon wrote:I'd like to see a response from Gwar!, in particular, who has stated previously that Red Thirst would not work on a Librarian IC despite being part of a unit, yet Ambush will - despite the fact that they are both special rules being applied to ICs in a unit, in the exact same manner.

Except it isn't.

TRT is a special rule that all models in the unit have, so it would not be applied to an IC. Ambush is a special rule ONE model has that grants an effect to all models within the unit, attached ICs included.

How is there a difference based on the rulebook?

Does the IC section state that "single models who confer special rules circumvent the fact that the rule must state that it gives it to an IC"?

TRT is not *just* a special rule that all the models in a unit have. TRT is a special rule that states, in the wording, that the entire *unit* gains the effects of the special rule. The unit the IC is a part of. In fact it is the exact same wording as Snikrot's Ambush.

Despite your own interpretation of said rule, the wording is still the exact same. And I'd like a page reference for "single models are the exceptions in regards to passing on special rules to ICs".

Double post

You are confusing a UNITS special rules (those listed under "Special Rules") and special rules that are *conferred* on the unit, usually by a singular source.

TRT is a UNIT special rule, i.e. EVERY member of the unit has it. LIke PM and FNP

I.e. BA SM A has TRT. So does BA SM B. And so on.

Doks Tools is the SPecial Rule of a *model* within the unit, who then confers the rule on the unit. So the special rule "FNP" is not found in the unit entry, as it is not a unit special rule, however when you read the entry you find that, as long as the painboy is there, every member of the squad is granted a special rule.

You cannot make the two equivalent without ignoring rather fundamental parts of the language.

ALso you are wrong in stating that the BRB states the rule must specify "and also any independent characters" - it ddoes not. ALL it asks for is that ICs are included by the special rule, and in addition it again only refers to unit special rules. DOks tools and similar are NOT unit special rules, and you cannot prove the contrary (and hand waving by crying "loophole" is just a way for your argument to be dismissed. You cannot cry "loophole" when it is convenient for you, it is simply a difference you dont like or admit to because it ruins your argument)

You are confusing a UNITS special rules (those listed under "Special Rules" and special rules that are *conferred* on the unit, usually by a singular source.

TRT is a UNIT special rule, i.e. EVERY member of the unit has it. LIke PM and FNP

Doks Tools is the SPecial Rule of a *model* within the unit, who then confers the rule on the unit.

You cannot make the two equivalent without ignoring rather fundamental parts of the language.

ALso you are wrong in stating that the BRB states the rule must specify "and also any independent characters" - it ddoes not. ALL it asks for is that ICs are included by the special rule, and in addition it again only refers to unit special rules. DOks tools and similar are NOT unit special rules, and you cannot prove the contrary (and hand waving by crying "loophole" is just a way for your argument to be dismissed. You cannot cry "loophole" when it is convenient for you, it is simply a difference you dont like or admit to because it ruins your argument)

Why the hostility guy? It's certainly not clear cut. Unless of course you can point me in the direction of where the rulebook says that a special rule a unit gains, granted by a member of the unit that cannot leave and is purchased by the unit is different that a unit's special rules. I see the case for it, I just don't know where you are referencing that a clear distinction is made.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that a "unit's special rule" is not the same thing as a special rule gained by the unit from a member of that unit that cannot leave and is purchased by them?

By taking these characters the unit gains this special rule. The character cannot leave, he is part of the unit and the unit now has that special rule. I am saying that it is a unit's special rule and I don't see why that is off base. Like it or not, you are arguing for something that isn't specified as different and only slightly different because of wording. I don't see how that can be seen as anything but a technicality.

Yes, because their unit entry is different.

Have a look at a nobz squad. Under "SPecial Rules" can you see "FNP"? No? Then it isnt a special rule of the unit.

In contrast Plague Marines DO have FNP as one of their Special Rules.

It is not a technicality, it is a fundamentally different idea. For one, being a unit special rule it means that EVERY member of that squad inherently can do X. When it is being conferred it is no longer an inherent ability - that alone makes it different enough.

You are crying loophole because otherwise you have no argument. Luckily it isnt a loophole.

Yes, because their unit entry is different.

Have a look at a nobz squad. Under "SPecial Rules" can you see "FNP"? No? Then it isnt a special rule of the unit.

In contrast Plague Marines DO have FNP as one of their Special Rules.

It is not a technicality, it is a fundamentally different idea. For one, being a unit special rule it means that EVERY member of that squad inherently can do X. When it is being conferred it is no longer an inherent ability - that alone makes it different enough.

You are crying loophole because otherwise you have no argument. Luckily it isnt a loophole.

I am saying that they are inherently a "unit's special rules". If a piece of war gear or upgrade character confers them on a unit, they are a special rule the unit has. Like it or not, that distinction isn't made on p 48 and that's all we have to go by.

Regardless of all of the above, they are still not conferred to joining IC's. In this case the "Painboy's unit" or "Snikrot's unit" is the entry in the codex. These characters will only ever have one unit, the one they are purchased with. An IC can join the unit, but guess what, the special rules of the unit aren't conferred on them unless it makes mention of that.

For the last time, an upgrade character or war gear that gives a unit a special rule makes it exactly that; a unit special rule. Cross apply p 48. The answer is clear.

JGrand wrote:
I am saying that they are inherently a "unit's special rules". If a piece of war gear or upgrade character confers them on a unit, they are a special rule the unit has. Like it or not, that distinction isn't made on p 48 and that's all we have to go by.

Regardless of all of the above, they are still not conferred to joining IC's. In this case the "Painboy's unit" or "Snikrot's unit" is the entry in the codex. These characters will only ever have one unit, the one they are purchased with. An IC can join the unit, but guess what, the special rules of the unit aren't conferred on them unless it makes mention of that.

For the last time, an upgrade character or war gear that gives a unit a special rule makes it exactly that; a unit special rule. Cross apply p 48. The answer is clear.

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

Read the thread.

Grakmar wrote:

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

To sum it up quickly, on page 48 of the 40K rulebook, the rules for Independent Characters say "the rule has to specifically state that it applies to an IC in order to work".

The Painboy's FNP (Dok's Tools) does not state that it works for ICs.

Therefore it does not work because of what is stated in the BRB.

JGrand wrote:

1) Does the Painboy grant FnP to the entire unit he is with?
Yes

2) Is the IC part of the unit?
Yes

What's the issue here?

Read the thread.

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magnalon wrote:
To sum it up quickly, on page 48 of the 40K rulebook, the rules for Independent Characters say "the rule has to specifically state that it applies to an IC in order to work".

The Painboy's FNP (Dok's Tools) does not state that it works for ICs.

Therefore it does not work because of what is stated in the BRB.

That's not what it says. It says: "Unless specified in the rule itself..., the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character..."

But, this is not a case of a unit having a special rule.

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.

I see this line of reasoning, it just seems incorrect. The Painboy confers FNP to the unit. Thus it is the units special rule. The Painboy is purchased as a upgrade to the unit and thus the unit purchases the rule. I can see where people draw the line, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

JGrand wrote:

Ok, but this isn't an issue of the unit having a special rule, and the IC without the rule joining it.

The issue is that neither the unit nor the IC has the special rule until the Painboy has granted it to them.
So, when the IC joins the unit, you ask "Is the IC's special rules different than the unit's?" And, no, neither one of them has any special rules mismatch.

Then, the Painboy's individual special rule says that the entire unit gets FnP. The IC is part of the unit, ergo, he gets FnP.

I see this line of reasoning, it just seems incorrect. The Painboy confers FNP to the unit. Thus it is the units special rule. The Painboy is purchased as a upgrade to the unit and thus the unit purchases the rule. I can see where people draw the line, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

So, what happens if the painboy dies? If my interpretation is correct, the unit (and any joined ICs) would loose FnP. If it was the unit that actually has the rule, wouldn't they continue to have it?

JGrand wrote:, I don't think I'm wrong in saying it seems like a technicality.

If its a technicality, its a rule.

If you don't think you are wrong in saying it seems like a rule, what are you arguing.

It works the same as Dante's Tactical Precision. Example: Dante+ Sanguinary Guard+ Astorath the Grim + 3 Sanguinary Priests with Jump packs, all as one unit, does not scatter when deepstriking.

Snikrots rule allows you to OUTFLANK (NOT SCOUT/INFILTRATE). Outflank is a method of deployment(in which his is also unique).

Infiltrate/Scout (USRs which are not conferred by/to ICs) are USRs which allow you to OUTFLANK (again a type of deployment).

Just as Alhrahim (spelling?, the IG guy...) and Korsaro Khan only give you the option of OUTFLANKING, as such is Snikrots ability.

Is it fair? No! But YMDC isn't the place to discuss what is fair, if it were, I'd think alot of people would rule that Blood Talons are illegal and that Eldar Vehicles can't be the target of Eldar Psychic Powers,,,,

I've been thinking a lot about what the above posters said, and it makes sense now.

For abilities like Blood Chalice and Liturgies of Blood, it still does not say “it affects ICs”. Same with Kustom Force field; Dante's Tac Precision; the Sanguinor’s +1 attack aura – the list goes on.

There’s no way that Games Workshop would not allow special abilities like that to work – ESPECIALLY something like KFF.

If it *always* had to say it specifically affected ICs, if a Sanguinary Priest (an IC) was in the same squad as a Chaplain (another IC), the Priest would not get the benefits of Liturgies of Blood. That's most certaintly not right.

If its a technicality, its a rule.

If you don't think you are wrong in saying it seems like a rule, what are you arguing.

It works the same as Dante's Tactical Precision. Example: Dante+ Sanguinary Guard+ Astorath the Grim + 3 Sanguinary Priests with Jump packs, all as one unit, does not scatter when deepstriking.

Snikrots rule allows you to OUTFLANK (NOT SCOUT/INFILTRATE). Outflank is a method of deployment(in which his is also unique).

Infiltrate/Scout (USRs which are not conferred by/to ICs) are USRs which allow you to OUTFLANK (again a type of deployment).

Just as Alhrahim (spelling?, the IG guy...) and Korsaro Khan only give you the option of OUTFLANKING, as such is Snikrots ability.

Is it fair? No! But YMDC isn't the place to discuss what is fair, if it were, I'd think alot of people would rule that Blood Talons are illegal and that Eldar Vehicles can't be the target of Eldar Psychic Powers,,,,

I definitely get IC's conferring the ability on the joined unit. Most of the time that is explicitly stated. The difference I'm seeing is that those are independent characters who under their rules specifically state the ability is conferred to their unit. Snikrot is an upgrade character who is inherently part of a unit. So what is his unit? It depends. His unit can be defined as one he is purchased with. While IC's can join his unit, they are still an IC joining a unit, not unequivocally part of the unit. There are times where they are (shooting), times when can choose to be or not be (moving), and times when they are not (assault). However, when it comes to the special rules aspect, it says that a unit's special rules aren't conferred on them unless otherwise stated.

I can definitely see why you mention a technicality is a rule. I still don't think there is much of a difference between a "unit's special rule" and a "special rule the unit has via an upgraded member of the unit". That is my issue. I don't know that that is differentiated either way. I can't find mention of it. I was erring that a "special rule conferred upon the unit" is a "unit's special rule".

I can see why people don't do it this way. I don't necessarily think it's game breaking and I'm not crying about it, I just want to play in a correct and consistent way. It seems inconsistent to me.

I definately agree that it is inconsistent, and I'd like some sort of idea how to determine what special abilities ICs can and cannot get.

And I'm definately not crying about it - I play Blood Angels and Orks - two armies that seek to benefit the most from this technicality ;D

JGrand wrote:
Snikrot is an upgrade character who is inherently part of a unit. So what is his unit? It depends. His unit can be defined as one he is purchased with. While IC's can join his unit, they are still an IC joining a unit, not unequivocally part of the unit.

His unit is the unit that he is with, as defined by the rules in the BRB. Arbitrarily changing that to only include models he was purchased with and not other things that are defined as being "part of the unit" makes no sense at all.

However, when it comes to the special rules aspect, it says that a unit's special rules aren't conferred on them unless otherwise stated.

Yes, it does. It says a "unit's special rules" aren't conferred.
Ambush is not a special rule of a kommando unit with snikrot. It is not a unit special rule or unit's special rule at all. It is a special rule of Snikrot's, which has an effect on his unit.

Yes, it does. It says a "unit's special rules" aren't conferred.
Ambush is not a special rule of a kommando unit with snikrot. It is not a unit special rule at all. It is a special rule of snikrot's, which has an effect on his unit.

Hmmm, I suppose so. Again, I see where people are coming from. Ambush is not listed or worded as conferring a special rule. Neither is doc's tools. It is a units special rule, but I suppose it isn't listed under the "units special rules" in the entry. Very tricky.

I have no problems with these things happening, it just seemed (and still seems) wrong from a wording standpoint.

"not unequivocally part of the unit" is incorrect. The rules for ICs say they have joined the unit. They only COUNT AS a seperate unit in close combat, and then only for a specific subseciton of the phase.

Unit's special rules == the rules every member of the unit has, regardless of an UC or IC. The clue, as has been stated, is that they apppear under "special rules" in the unit entry.

Units special rules /= special rules the unit gains when a UC / IC appears. One is inherent, one is not. The distinction isnt even a technicality, but an entirely different concept.

"not unequivocally part of the unit" is incorrect. The rules for ICs say they have joined the unit. They only COUNT AS a seperate unit in close combat, and then only for a specific subseciton of the phase.

Unit's special rules == the rules every member of the unit has, regardless of an UC or IC. The clue, as has been stated, is that they apppear under "special rules" in the unit entry.

Units special rules /= special rules the unit gains when a UC / IC appears. One is inherent, one is not. The distinction isnt even a technicality, but an entirely different concept.

What I have gathered is this:

It works because of the difference between the "Special Rules"entry under the unit and the other special rules a unit may have via war gear or otherwise. While the Doc's Tools and Snikrot's ambush are
special rules by nature, they aren't "Special Rules" by definition. Therefore they circumvent the stipulations outlined on page 48. It makes sense when broken down, but it doesn't make sense in the
wording.

That's why joining IC's can't get Red Thirst as it's a units "Special Rule" but you can get ambush because it is a special rule that isn't listed under the unit's "Special Rules" section.

So essentially the rules are unclear and necessarily muddled. It's the difference between "Special Rules" and special rules. Pretty lame but I suppose it works.

It isnt that they arent "special rules" - they ARE special rules. However the ones in question are not the UNITS special rules - they are special rules that belong to a character - upgrade or otherwise.

It isnt that they arent "special rules" - they ARE special rules. However the ones in question are not the UNITS special rules - they are special rules that belong to a character - upgrade or otherwise.

As I said in my above post, I do see that. They are the unit's special rules and yet are not "Unit Special Rules". It is really badly worded but makes sense.

No, you still dont get it.

Members of the unit have inherent and, potentially, conferred special rules.

A units inherent special rules are the Unit's special rules. Special rules which the unit may gain (by an IC joining, bying an upgrade character) are NOT the Units special rules, but the special rules of the character.

For example the Exarch Power bladestorm is NOT a Unit Special Rule. It is a special rule which affects the unit, but it is not theirs intrinsically - when the Exarch dies they forget how to do it.

You are confusing special rules that the unit gains with inherent rules the unit always has.

No, you still dont get it.

Members of the unit have inherent and, potentially, conferred special rules.

A units inherent special rules are the Unit's special rules. Special rules which the unit may gain (by an IC joining, bying an upgrade character) are NOT the Units special rules, but the special rules of the character.

For example the Exarch Power bladestorm is NOT a Unit Special Rule. It is a special rule which affects the unit, but it is not theirs intrinsically - when the Exarch dies they forget how to do it.

You are confusing special rules that the unit gains with inherent rules the unit always has.

Right, things like Bladestorm are a special rule the unit gets from a member of the unit, not a "Unit Special Rule". I get exactly what people are saying. All I am saying is that by giving bladestorm to a unit, it is a unit's special rule, however this is not what the BRB is referencing as "Unit Special Rule" like the ones outlined in a codex entry. Despite some of the attempts at explaining the difference, I was able to piece it together.

!EDIT!

I am blitzed out of my mind right now, disregard this last message!

Ambush doesn't transfer to IC because it doens't state that it does so.

Can a Farseer skyleap with Swooping Hawks?

codex eldar, exarch powers:

....

Note that Exarch powers only ever affects Aspect warriors and Autarchs ....

General_Chaos wrote:Ambush doesn't transfer to IC because it doens't state that it does so.

Brilliant contribution. Any rules to back that up?

"And his UNIT" is more than sufficient to include the IC. You know the IC that is joined to Snikrots unit, is a normal member of said unit in every phase of the game outside of part of assault, etc.

[/quoteCan a Farseer skyleap with Swooping Hawks?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Brilliant contribution. Any rules to back that up?

I got about eight thousand threads and a million posts on various forums all across the internet including this one that boils down to nobody can prove it works either way. So to sit here and talk about this topic like it's something new is really a joke.

Well, you can prove it, just some people dont agree. Doesnt make it any less true, however.

Additionally INAT disagrees with you. For all that matteers

Yes, you can ambush with Ghaz. Yes, you can get FNP on a warboss with a painboy nob squad. Yes an apothecary will give FNP to a captain.

All rely on exactly the same wording and the exact same permission. Disagreeing on any one disagrees with all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Additionally INAT disagrees with you. For all that matteers

It doesn't matter.

It's nice that INAT answered the question to get a standard in some tournaments, but it doesn't make it right. Only GW can do that,look at the Doom ruling, how much more wrong could INAT have been on that.

Why do people keep stating that Snikrot allows his unit to outflank? That word is not anywhere in his rules, and yet people keep repeating it.

It's Ambush and it's different. It's not a USR, so you can put an IC in the unit (Ghaz) and he can Ambush with Snikrot.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Brilliant contribution. Any rules to back that up?

I got about eight thousand threads and a million posts on various forums all across the internet including this one that boils down to nobody can prove it works either way. So to sit here and talk about this topic like it's something new is really a joke.

8000 threads?

1000000 posts?

Cool, care to provide any of them that actually reference the rules to support their claims?

I can go post 625 posts per thread(really now?) on various websites and messageboards about how I think that a furioso librarian can take blood talons, but it doesn't matter how many times I make a false statement, it will still be false.

And seen as you 'got about' could we have the 8000/1000000 links please? To some at least?

ChrisCP wrote:And seen as you 'got about' could we have the 8000/1000000 links please? To some at least?

I'd actually like the full million, personally... since he tried to use it as proof when asked for rules.

Tenets and all that...
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.

General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Additionally INAT disagrees with you. For all that matteers

It doesn't matter.

It's nice that INAT answered the question to get a standard in some tournaments, but it doesn't make it right. Only GW can do that,look at the Doom ruling, how much more wrong could INAT have been on that.

And yet in the end a TO can also do its own ruling and end any other discussions about it as well if he/she wants to.

This same old argument again? Sigh.


Again, it all comes down to what level of specificity you think is needed for a special rule to apply to a joined IC. The rulebook examples of such specificity point to some universal special rule which clearly specify exactly how they interact with joined ICs, so it is a perfectly valid assumption for some players to feel that this level of specificity is required for a special rule to apply to a joined IC.

However, the rules also don't spell out that the example given is the only level of specificity that is allowed. In many (if not most) players minds, a special rule that says it applies to 'a unit' or 'all models in a unit' is written specifically enough to also apply to joined ICs.


With our first ruling on the matter in the INAT, we took the more hardline approach of the first stance. The problem with this, is the rule ONLY applies to 'special rules', so things like psychic abilities and wargear would be exempt (and would therefore apply to joined ICs). This got to be really, really tricky when dealing with a piece of wargear that provided a unit WITH a special rule (like Doks Tools giving the unit 'Feel No Pain')...did that apply to joined ICs or not?

We made our hard line decision but over time it became clear that this was very confusing for most players to understand when these types of 'provided' special rules should be applying to joined ICs and when they shouldn't. And to exacerbate things, after watching hundreds of games played at Adepticon last year we noticed that the vast majority (if not all) players seemed to be ignoring the ruling when it came to some of the more common situations where it occurs, namely something like the Chaplain's 'Liturgies of Battle' rule...EVERYBODY seems to naturally play that this rule applies to a joined IC.

But the problem is, if you look at the poll I've run before regarding Ghaz ambushing with snikrot, back then you saw that MOST people seemed to agree that Ghaz was *not* allowed to ambush with Snikrot:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225132.page#486075


But really the two rules are really, really close to being similar...certainly nothing enough that one should apply to joined ICs while the other shouldn't.

Ultimately we decided that we needed to reverse the ruling because in *MOST* situations in the game *MOST* people play that these types of 'provided' special rules apply to joined ICs, and it is FAR easier to grasp and understand then trying to play the other way.



The truth is, there is absolutely no 'clear' answer on this, as is the case with many rules issues. At the end of the day it boils down to what level of specificity you believe a special rule has to have in order to apply to a joined IC.

I now personally believe that if the rule says it applies to the unit or all the models in the unit that's good enough to apply to an IC joined to the unit as well, and I'd wager that's how the folks in the studio play as well when it comes to the vast majority of these types of situations, even if they don't play that way specifically with Snikrot's ability.

If you have decided to play it the first way (that a special rule MUST specifically mention how it affects an IC in order to affect an IC) then you'll need to make sure to apply this ruling in all facets of the game...and good luck figuring out a consistent way to play when it comes to wargear or psychic powers that give a USR to a unit!

So I guess bringing snikrot off the back side of the table with two warbosses on warbikes would be frowned at.

It's a minimum of 410 pionts iirc for that particular trick. So really, if you want to have a fairly large cunk of a 2500 point army missing untill they feel bothered to come on, yeah, i'll frown but mostly at the 'Free Beats' I'll be dealing

RustyNails wrote:So I guess bringing snikrot off the back side of the table with two warbosses on warbikes would be frowned at.

Depends who you're playing with I guess. I don't have a problem with it, especially given the GW rulebook FAQ clarification that ICs joined to a unit that arrive from Reserves cannot leave it the unit the turn they arrive. That means your super unit is stuck together for that one turn they arrive, which really lessens the impact of such a maneuver.

Well I feel that RAW Snikrot does allow you to bring an IC off the back side of the table, but at the end of the day if someone doesn't feel the same, it's cool, it's just a game. I'm in it to have fun and getting an IC behind you isn't going to make or break a game for me. I rather dodge 15 mins of BRB thumping and just throw dice!

It's a minimum of 410 pionts iirc for that particular trick. So really, if you want to have a fairly large cunk of a 2500 point army missing untill they feel bothered to come on, yeah, i'll frown but mostly at the 'Free Beats' I'll be dealing

Free Beats Welcome LOL

It would at least make you wonder what the heck I was thinking. Knowing that a possiible 3 targets wern't safe could be unsettling.

One just stops hugging board edges

thats a lot of not hugging with bikes coming in and spliting off and their threat range, which pushes you closer to my main battle group, which is in the end the idea. Ideally. But you are correct its a lot or dough to tie up into an unreliable delivery of your main tactic. I have used and seen it work once, but by the time they got on the table they were just helping with clean up and didn't really do much in the way of destruction, they just pushed the Guard player closer to my side, so they worked... kinda. lol

RustyNails wrote:thats a lot of not hugging with bikes coming in and spliting off and their threat range,

They can't do that the turn the come on, which is the key to why it's not 'broken', 6" move, 6" fleet with waaagh and 6" assault at one squad with 7 models, will probably be difficult against a savvy player to achive a multi and then there's very little chance two or even one warboss isn't going to make you win combat! then it's leaning on 4+ cover from exhaust. Hope you don't lose your 6+ boys and be forced to start taking LD checks >_<

So an IC has to stay with the unit they are attached to for the first turn they are on the table? Or that they come on to the table with? Then on the Second turn they can then break away?

RustyNails wrote:So an IC has to stay with the unit they are attached to for the first turn they are on the table? Or that they come on to the table with? Then on the Second turn they can then break away?

You got it. An IC that arrives on the table via reserves joined to a unit cannot leave it the same turn he arrives (he'd have to wait until his next turn to do so). Check out the GW rulebook FAQ for more details.

Since this is about special rules could I ask about SitNW and IC's? My understanding was Commissar Lord/Priests were lost because the unit's bought rule only applied to the conscripts. Is this because of how the SitNW rule is worded (no dex on hand, thought it said all models with wargear) or was this thrown for a loop as well?

From memory it states it brings back conscripts, and additioanlly the GW FAQ covers it - both from memory, cant check from here...

You're right, it says full strength and IC weren't bought with the squad but added/joined in later

Q. Chenkov allows you to remove a Conscript
Squad. What happens to any independent
characters that were attached to that squad?
A. They are lost. As Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’ rule states that you remove the unit, and as
independent characters attached to units are part
of it when the rule is used, they are removed as
well. The rule also states that the new unit arrives
with as many models as its full-strength
predecessor. As independent characters aren’t
part of the unit when was purchased (they join it
later) they don’t count and will therefore be lost.
Chenkov’s officers are as disposable as his men


Right, the rule confused me with "and it's wargear" when you can't do anything to them but SitNW

THey were covering all bases I guess.

Makes a change!

It's a cheesy way to play but yes it is 100% legal. Non Ork players will argue til the cows come home but they lose. Snikrot's ability gives his "unit" the ability. When an IC joins a "unit" he becomes part of it.

Same situation as a painboy with an IC in the unit. The IC gains FNP

Personally, if my Ork-playing buddy chooses to do this, more's the merrier, where I'm concerned. It's not a very bright idea, this, not from where I'm standing. It's cool and crazy, just like everything else in the Ork codex. But a smart tactical decision? I'm not sure about that.

RustyNails wrote:So I guess bringing snikrot off the back side of the table with two warbosses on warbikes would be frowned at.

Yes, taking 3 HQ choices would indeed be frowned upon... and totally illegal...

As to Snikrott's rule including Ghaz (or any warboss or character joining the unit before it's deployed), I reckon it does, the language used is clearly inclusive rather than exclusive. This also applies to painboy's fnp.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

RustyNails wrote:So I guess bringing snikrot off the back side of the table with two warbosses on warbikes would be frowned at.

Yes, taking 3 HQ choices would indeed be frowned upon... and totally illegal...

As to Snikrott's rule including Ghaz (or any warboss or character joining the unit before it's deployed), I reckon it does, the language used is clearly inclusive rather than exclusive. This also applies to painboy's fnp.

Snikrot isn't an HQ Choice...

Ambush refers to Snikrot's kommandos. People are loosely applying this with the general rules for joining an IC to any unit. They are mutually exclusive of each other.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Ambush refers to Snikrot's kommandos. People are loosely applying this with the general rules for joining an IC to any unit. They are mutually exclusive of each other.

It doesn't say "Snikrot and his Kommandoz" - it says "Snikrot and his unit".

His unit are kommandos, he is not an HQ nor an IC. He can never have another unit.

It's Orks. If it was any other faction with such an "oversight" in rules, well, maybe I'd argue against it, but Orks? Let them have their craziness, the more the better.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:His unit are kommandos, he is not an HQ nor an IC.

His unit also includes ICs who are joined to it, just so you know.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:His unit are kommandos, he is not an HQ nor an IC.

Incorrect. "his unit" is the unit he is part of.

When an HQ joins a unit the HQ is part of the unit. States it about 4 times in total, even mentioning at the end of the assault rules that the IC again becomes just another member of the unit.

Semantics in terms of how you are applying the term. I could really care less about the Give the Orks Some Luv sentiment.

Edited by Manchu. Keep calm & carry on.

If the unit of Kommandos could by itself Ambush - Ghaz wouldnt benefit from this. Ambush is conferred to the unit by paying the points for Snikrot. Since the benfit comes from him and not his unit - Ghaz can attach and benefit from the Ambush special rule.

That was full of logical fail. Conferring special abilities doesn't work that way.

Re-read the rest of the entire thread and see that they do.

Just like Liturgies of Blood works on the Chaplain's entire unit.

Or a Painboy's Dok's Tools work on everyone in the unit.

Ambush is the same idea.

Yeah - Im definitely struggling with the logic on this one. I want it to be true and there are times when I believe it to be. I would have a hard time explaining why its legal for Ghas to hitch a ride with Snikrot to someone that doesnt play Orks.

Doesn't that tell you that it's a sleazy move? If you feel that uncomfortable about it then don't do it. This first started with people who wanted to attach a warboss on a bike.

Imho, it's pretty clear how it's worded.

A painboy can only be bought for a nob squad, and his doc's tools states his unit gains FNP, does that mean a warboss wouldn't get it? Nope, he does.

Snikrot's rule states his unit can move in from any table edge, does this stop a warboss that joins the squad from benefiting? Nope, he does...

This is irregardless if it's a cheesy tactic or not. Personally I don't even think it's very practical to use, there's certainly more effective ways of using a warboss.

But from a pure rules aspect, it's legal.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Doesn't that tell you that it's a sleazy move? If you feel that uncomfortable about it then don't do it. This first started with people who wanted to attach a warboss on a bike.

You have to announce Ghaz is attached to Snikrot. It isn't top secret.

As soon as your opponent realizes this, they simply deploy more than 6" away from the table edge. Then they move for their turn 1, because Ghaz can MAYBE come in Turn 2 from reserves with Snikrot.

You simply laugh, as you are 13" away from the edge, making it impossible for any squad member to reach you, then gun down the 435~ point squad.

Waaagh....make it 19 to be sure.

Thanks Greenbay - thats a simple clear way to explain it.

I dont think its a sleazy move at all.

Magnalon wrote:
You simply laugh, as you are 13" away from the edge, making it impossible for any squad member to reach you

Enjoy getting turn 2 multiassaulted in your back line by one of the best CC models around.

People who say "I'll just put my whole army over 18" from every board edge" either haven't walked around a table with a 18" measuring tape to see how big that is, or are doing exactly what the ork player wants. Not to say that it's a good idea to run the (perfectly legal ) tactic, but still.

It seems legit as shrikes "infiltrate" rule specificaly states another ic cant join and get the benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems legit as shrikes "infiltrate" rule specificaly states another ic cant join and get the benefits.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Magnalon wrote:
You simply laugh, as you are 13" away from the edge, making it impossible for any squad member to reach you

Enjoy getting turn 2 multiassaulted in your back line by one of the best CC models around.

People who say "I'll just put my whole army over 18" from every board edge" either haven't walked around a table with a 18" measuring tape to see how big that is, or are doing exactly what the ork player wants. Not to say that it's a good idea to run the (perfectly legal ) tactic, but still.

It's still easily doable to avoid it, and for such a huge amount of points that Snikrot squad would cost. You get at *least* one extra turn to move away. Pretty much everything but a parking lot can deal with it. The new Dark Eldar will crush it.

IMO it's like fielding Mephiston against someone who has no idea who he is. It will most likely table them the first time, but the next game, it's more manageable. And hey, it may not even come in until turn 5.

I would like to believe I am a good enough 40k Gamer that I'll never have to resort to this type of chicanery. What I have stated here is my best interpretation of these rules. Sure I have a bias. I think everyone does. So I could be wrong but what I have said is how I would play it. Some armies it's not that big a deal but others I think would naturally suffer. At the end of the day it is up to you, your opponents and the TO.

I wouldn't care to use it because it's basically a dice roll on whether or not 400+~ points comes in. I wouldn't hinge 1/3 or a 1/4 of my entire army purely on chance.

The only guaranteed positive with this setup is that you can still use Ghaz's Waaagh if he's not on the board.

You can do it.

I wouldn't personally; just seems a bit silly/bendy.

But it undeniably do-able.

I still dont get how it works. I hate to say it, but Ghaz is not part of the unit the entire game. He is part of the unit when shot at, but simply attached otherwise.

So, start of the game, you declare that Ghaz and Snik are in reserve together. This is fine. But Ghaz and Snik are not one unit in reserve, correct? He joins when deployed? But he cant deploy within 2 inches if ghaz has to walk on from your board edge while snik wants to go on the other board edge.

Edit: for clarity. Ghaz is an IC, and is a unit. Snik is a upgrade char, in a kommando unit. Snik's unit is kommandos. When an IC joins a unit, they are all treated as 1 unit. HOWEVER, they are a combined unit, the IC unit, and the Kommando unit. Snik's rule works on his unit. Ghaz is not a member of Sniks unit normally. Thus things that only affect kommandos dont affect Ghazghulls. When shot at, Ghaz BECOMES a member of the kommando unit. In that case, there is only 1 unit type, kommando. However, outside of shooting, Ghaz's unit type is not kommando.

DevianID wrote:But Ghaz and Snik are not one unit in reserve, correct? He joins when deployed? But he cant deploy within 2 inches if ghaz has to walk on from your board edge while snik wants to go on the other board edge.

Wrong.

As per the rules for Reserves, you can attach ICs to units in Reserves. They roll 1 die for Reserves and walk onto the table as one unit.

Gwar drat, you Ninja'd me!

I know that, the deployed thing was a brain fart/poor choice of words. The point I want to make still stands. Yes they walk on the table as one combined unit. However, the combined unit is made up of an IC unit and Snik's Kommando unit. Ghaz is not part of Snik's kommando unit in the movement phase, infact Ghaz is only an actual member of Snik's Kommando unit when shot at. Outside of shooting they are still 2 units acting as one.

Incorrect. When an IC joins he is a normal member of the unit (See assault rules which reiterates this) and is only *treated as* a seperate unit in close combat.

So it is ONE unit, and "Snikrots unit" is the unit Snikrot belongs to; this includes the IC.

Without the rulebook handy at work I wont have quotes to check what your saying Nos... That said, are you sure that when an IC joins he is always a member of the joined unit, and is no longer an IC unit? I thought that he and the unit he is joining form one combined unit consisting of 2 seperate units, unless being shot at where he is not an IC unit until after shooting.

As for 'Snikrots unit', 'snikrot's unit' does not mean 'any unit snikrot is in' does it? 'Snikrot's unit' to me implies ownership, and only Kommandos can have snikrot.

Or as you put it, if it is the unit snikrot belongs to, that unit is only Kommandos. Snikrot does not belong to any other unit than Kommandos, attached ICs or not.

Except that ghazghkull is part of snikrots unit as you placed them in reserve as such.

Ics are only Treated as being a seperate unit in assault. Ghaz is part of snikrots unit if deployed as such.

kill dem stunties wrote:Except that ghazghkull is part of snikrots unit as you placed them in reserve as such.

Ics are only Treated as being a seperate unit in assault. Ghaz is part of snikrots unit if deployed as such.

ICs can be targeted in a melee during the assault phase. However for all intents and purposes, the unit still has an IC at the end of the assault phase and they are both stuck together until the next chance you get to separate the IC from the unit (movement phase).

Just look at the rules for Tau stealth suits and their stealth fields, when dealing with joining units. Same thing.

Bottom line is the infiltrate rule doesn't transfer over, so he can't outflank, which means the unit can't outflank.

juraigamer wrote:Just look at the rules for Tau stealth suits and their stealth fields, when dealing with joining units. Same thing.

Bottom line is the infiltrate rule doesn't transfer over, so he can't outflank, which means the unit can't outflank.

You seem to have missed the point and hit the barn behind it there laddy!

No-one is saying he can outflank with Ghaz. In Fact, he can't, as Ghaz doesn't have Infiltrate, so they won't be able to Outflank with Ghaz attached.

Nothing stops them using Snikrots "Ambush" rule though, so they can use it!

DevianID has it right assuming he meant to say they can't ambush.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:DevianID has it right assuming he meant to say they can't ambush.

Except he doesnt have it right, as has been shown in this thread.

P48, ICs JOIN units meaning they are a member of the unit. Did you read the part I suggested, namely the assault section which explicitly states they become a normal member of the unit?

I think there is some confusion because of the title by the OP. The question is in regards to Snikrot's Ambush special rule which is not outflanking. As noted Snikrot's unit must be the kommandos as he is not an independent character and thus cannot join other units. An IC can join other units though - this is the other part that is a cause of confusion. Snikrot is basically a special character that counts as a nob, he cannot be picked out as a separate unit in close combat, however an IC can be picked out as a separate unit in close combat and can also leave the unit of kommandos which Snikrot cannot do. The kommandos are Snikrot's unit, an IC that has joined them is not.

Except an IC that has joined a unit has, as you are told more than once (not only in the rules but in this thread, fyi) that the IC is a normal member of the unit.

Yes, the IC can leave the unit. Irrelevant to the question of who "Snikrots unit" is - it is the unit Snikrot is a member of. Which includes the IC.

You have no rules that contradict this, you just dont like it so you argue against it.

You've missed my point altogether. I do understand that there is some confusion, which I have taken the time to explain, so I see how you are mistaken. My point of view is not based on "I don't like this so I'll argue against it", rather it's how the rules actually work.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:You've missed my point altogether. I do understand that there is some confusion, which I have taken the time to explain, so I see how you are mistaken. My point of view is not based on "I don't like this so I'll argue against it", rather it's how the rules actually work.

Considering that, as shown by Nos, myself and several others, it isn't, I would have to agree with Nos here.

Except it isnt. One person is mistaken here. You have also stated your dislike and personal bias against this entirely legal tactic more than once, making your conclusion suspect.

Being able to leave the unit at some point does not override the rules on:

- 2nd, 7/8/9th paragraph page 48. IC has JOINED the unit
- 4th paragraph page 48. IC is PART OF a unit
- 1st paragraph page 49. IC is part of a unit
- 5th paragraph page 49. IC are "once again treated as NORMAL MEMBERS of the unit"

In each case the model is part of the unit. Therefore when asking "what is Snikrots unit" it includes all members of the unit, incuding the IC.

You have shown no rules that contradict this, just a personal bias against it. Not a valid argument.

Gwar! wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Just look at the rules for Tau stealth suits and their stealth fields, when dealing with joining units. Same thing.

Bottom line is the infiltrate rule doesn't transfer over, so he can't outflank, which means the unit can't outflank.

You seem to have missed the point and hit the barn behind it there laddy!

No-one is saying he can outflank with Ghaz. In Fact, he can't, as Ghaz doesn't have Infiltrate, so they won't be able to Outflank with Ghaz attached.

Nothing stops them using Snikrots "Ambush" rule though, so they can use it!

Whoa thanks! I had just woken up.

Ok lets see, after reading the codex...

Yes. Oddly enough it seems to work. "Snikrot and his unit" is the exact wording, and since an attached HQ is considered part of the unit the rule would confer in this case. Huh. Amazing I will have to try this. I wonder how baller I can make the unit, add in another warboss hq too? Or maybe the mad doc.

As I said Snikrot's unit are the kommandos. However the IC is not a kommando so he is not part of Snikrot's kommandos, he is simply and IC joined to the unit. The Ambush rule refers to the kommandos not an IC joining the unit.

Kommandos = Snikrot's unit
IC = separate unit that has joined the kommandos, is not a kommando

Like I said I understand why you are confused.

Sigh.

No, not confused. Your personal bias against it does not make it an invalid tactic. Your ability to change the meaning of simple English phrases doesnt make it an invalid tactic.

Your inability to counter rules quotes with anything even approaching rules, just blind assertions, doesnt make it an invalid tactic. It does make you a troll, however.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:As I said Snikrot's unit are the kommandos.

That isn't what the rules say.

Like I said I understand why you are confused.

Your condescending tone is not appreciated, for the record.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:Yes. Oddly enough it seems to work. "Snikrot and his unit" is the exact wording, and since an attached HQ is considered part of the unit the rule would confer in this case. Huh. Amazing I will have to try this. I wonder how baller I can make the unit, add in another warboss hq too? Or maybe the mad doc.

Mad Doc is too Dangerous IMO. Stick with just Ghaz imo. If you must use a 2nd IC, throw in another Mega-Warboss (since everyone has MTC, the Mega Armour isn't that much of a Hindrance) or a Warboss on a Bike to go Karting around afterwards.

Warbozz on bike, more killy at range and T6 for non-ID purposes is worth it...

@blood
Show me the passage where it says the Kommandoz are always 100% only Snikrot's unit.

@Gwar

Gwar! wrote:Your condescending tone is not appreciated, for the record.

I remember a few days ago when your condescending tone towards me wasn't appreciated.

C'mon, man - don't play that game and act all high and mighty. You do it too and you know it. You have the wits to be condescending, so it's fine - just don't act like you're above it.

I am a bit confused and would like some more info from the both of you (Gwar and Nos). Can you explain the difference between this rule and TRT (the Red Thirst).

I posted this link as to ask why this rule works on a swuad without the rule, and why TRT does not effect IC's joined to a squad?
shttp://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/316153.pageay

Also, note that you have the exact opposite opinion in the other thread. Thank you!

@Kap
It is a bit different.

Librarian's do not have the Red Thirst special rule under their codex listing.

Assault Squads do.

Although TRT is not a universal rule, the army listings help point out in this regard that ICs do not get it (since no IC in the BA codex has the thirst rule). The wording is the same - "the unit" - but the rules are different.

Snikrot is a special character that replaces the nob in a squad of kommandos. He cannot be individually targeted in close combat and works the same as a nob for close combat. So Snikrot is not an IC and as such can never join another unit, which an IC can do. So it's obvious that Snikrot's unit is the kommandos, not an IC that joins the unit as an IC is not a kommando and can never be. The mistake people are making is what they refer to as Snikrot's unit. If Snikrot was an IC then it would be different but this is clearly not the case. Pointing to the rules that discuss an IC joining other units doesn't apply here.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:So it's obvious that Snikrot's unit is the kommandos.

Do you have a rules quote to back this up? Because as several people have pointed out, this is not the case.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Snikrot is a special character that replaces the nob in a squad of kommandos. He cannot be individually targeted in close combat and works the same as a nob for close combat. So Snikrot is not an IC and as such can never join another unit, which an IC can do. So it's obvious that Snikrot's unit is the kommandos, not an IC that joins the unit as an IC is not a kommando and can never be. The mistake people are making is what they refer to as Snikrot's unit. If Snikrot was an IC then it would be different but this is clearly not the case. Pointing to the rules that discuss an IC joining other units doesn't apply here.

A Painboy is a special character that replaces the nob in a squad of Nobz and Flash Gitz. He cannot be individually targeted in close combat and works the same as a nob for close combat. So the Painboy is not an IC and as such can never join another unit, which an IC can do. So it's obvious that Painboys's unit is the Nobz/Flash Gitz, not an IC that joins the unit as an IC is not a Nob/Flash Git can never be. The mistake people are making is what they refer to the Painboy's unit. If the Painboy was an IC then it would be different but this is clearly not the case. Pointing to the rules that discuss an IC joining other units doesn't apply here.

Oh wait... I want FNP on my warboss...

'His unit' works the same if it is an attached IC or an upgrade char. Skyleap includes ICs, why wouldn't Ambush? Doks Tools include attached ICs. It is all or nothing. At no point is 'his unit' limited to the unit an UG character was bought with, if that was the case we would have no FNP for ICs and No Skyleaping either.

The issue regarding a painboy and conferring FNP has also been hotly debated which can be found using the search function. Looks like there were two schools of thought on that one as well. As noted the painboy is not an IC but then again it is neither a special character.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Snikrot is a special character that replaces the nob in a squad of kommandos. He cannot be individually targeted in close combat and works the same as a nob for close combat. So Snikrot is not an IC and as such can never join another unit, which an IC can do.

All entirely irrlevant to the statement "his unit"

BloodThirSTAR wrote:So it's obvious that Snikrot's unit is the kommandos,

Please provide a rulesquote, as Engish disagrees with you there.

not an IC

BloodThirSTAR wrote:The mistake people are making is what they refer to as Snikrot's unit. If Snikrot was an IC then it would be different but this is clearly not the case. Pointing to the rules that discuss an IC joining other units doesn't apply here.

We are not making a mistake here, your personal bias shows in your illogical argument.

I swear this entire thread keeps going because one person got his little models slapped around because someone used gaz in the kommando unit of surprise.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:The issue regarding a painboy and conferring FNP has also been hotly debated which can be found using the search function. Looks like there were two schools of thought on that one as well. As noted the painboy is not an IC but then again it is neither a special character.

Please show where upgrade characters like Excharchs and Painboys apply 'HIS unit' to ICs and special characters follow a whole different level of applying the term 'HIS unit'.

If the way the model is upgraded is the issue then there must be a section in the rulebook that clearly details this difference right?

I have yet to see anything that makes special characters and Wargear 'his unit' work differently from upgrade characters.

There isnt, which is the point.

The poster doesnt like the legal tactic, so is at the point of making stuff up to pretend it doesnt work.

God... BloodthirSTAR, U mad?
Cause you sure sound like it. You keep trying to change the wording of the same sentence to prove your point.
Gwar! and nos have proved their point many times over

juraigamer wrote:I swear this entire thread keeps going because one person got his little models slapped around because someone used gaz in the kommando unit of surprise.

Actually I have never played any game wherein the other player tried this. As has been noted it's easily countered by many armies.

The question is whose unit is Snikrot's? As I explained it can't be anything other than the kommandos because he can't join other units. Maybe it's possible you can say if an IC joins the kommandos then it's the IC unit but the IC doesn't confer the Ambush rule.

ANd, as has been pointed out to you using rules, the IC becomes a member of Snikrots unit.

Meaning he can ambush. Gee, who'd have thought.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:

juraigamer wrote:I swear this entire thread keeps going because one person got his little models slapped around because someone used gaz in the kommando unit of surprise.

Actually I have never played any game wherein the other player tried this. As has been noted it's easily countered by many armies.

The question is whose unit is Snikrot's? As I explained it can't be anything other than the kommandos because he can't join other units. Maybe it's possible you can say if an IC joins the kommandos then it's the IC unit but the IC doesn't confer the Ambush rule.

See my above post.
And for that matter, all of Gwar!'s and nos's.
In which they prove it works. If a warboss joined a nob squad w/ painboy, would he get FNP? Yep.
Or are you not going to let your opponent get any? Because the painboy's unit isn't the warboss?

I'd suggest we all stop feeding the troll, who is breaking the tenets of TMDC as they have yet to use a single rules quote to back up their argument

True. Do we report in this situation, or what?

If you want to, cant be bothered.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:

juraigamer wrote:I swear this entire thread keeps going because one person got his little models slapped around because someone used gaz in the kommando unit of surprise.

Actually I have never played any game wherein the other player tried this. As has been noted it's easily countered by many armies.

My apologies then.

Thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

No, not confused. Your personal bias against it does not make it an invalid tactic. Your ability to change the meaning of simple English phrases doesnt make it an invalid tactic.

Your inability to counter rules quotes with anything even approaching rules, just blind assertions, doesnt make it an invalid tactic. It does make you a troll, however.

Fewer of the troll accusations, please.



This thread seems to have reached a satisfactory conclusion.