Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

budro wrote:
from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero.

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

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

Zero.

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

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

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

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

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

Zero

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

arnaroe wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that explained better?

Hymirl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that explained better?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summation, you have yet to refute:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving along to your last question..

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

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

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

hmmm just like the painboy : )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

arnaroe wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

budro wrote:
from the dok tool rule:

He confers the FNP ability to his unit.

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

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

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

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

arnaroe wrote:

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

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

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

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

Page 74, second paragraph (mini rulebook):

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

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

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

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

Sure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condition: The joined unit has different special rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wargear is not the special rule.

FNP is the special rule.

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

Ork Codex doesn't override this.

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

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

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

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

That is my thoughts as well Trek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fearless is