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.

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

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

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

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

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

FACTS

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

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

I can point to several references that say they are:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

the quote for the Stubborn USR:

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

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

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

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


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

The Asterisk quote:

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

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

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

olympia wrote:

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

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

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

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

Its nice to want things.

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

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

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

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

Spetulhu wrote:

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

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

True, but thats life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

olympia wrote:

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

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

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

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

And you're right?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

olympia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well they give the doc & warbosss company.

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

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

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


See the above underlined bit, just incase.


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


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

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

Well they give the doc & warbosss company.

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

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

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


See the above underlined bit, just incase.


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


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

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

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

The warboss is an IC

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

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

I will qoute Target as he said it best here

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

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

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

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

the quote for the Stubborn USR:

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

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

Thanks again targetawg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ targetawg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

padixon wrote:@ targetawg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

padixon wrote:@ targetawg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Ummm. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

padixon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should try it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he's just as official as we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of these arguements have basically either been shown to be wrong or shown to be irrelevant IMO.

Specific or unspecific? What else is there?

frgsinwntr wrote:

olympia wrote:I received this reply from John Spencer:

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is funny. On the Deffrolla debate a dozen or so posters all emailed John Spencerand we all posted our emails. All were the same. If you did in fact go to the same source and recieved a differant answer, please post it.

Darkness wrote:

I think this is funny. On the Deffrolla debate a dozen or so posters all emailed John Spencerand we all posted our emails. All were the same. If you did in fact go to the same source and recieved a differant answer, please post it.

No, he called a random store and offered an "interpretation" with which, however it was put, an employee agreed. I called a store too. They said that they defer to Mr. Spencer on all rules questions.


It's quite simple really. Unit: "a group of models that fights together." Dok's tools: "grants FNP to his unit."

The most nonsensical assertion in this thread is that Mad Doc Grotsnik does not grant FNP to the unit he joins. Kafka would be proud--according to these folk, Dok's tools applies neither to the Doc (which I could see) nor to his unit. Of course, they cling to this RAW solipsism because they realize that if they admit Grotsnik grants FNP to his unit then a Painboy would grant FNP to an attached warboss via the same piece of wargear. As the famous Inquisitor Arthur Schopenhauer said, "RAW solipsism is an impregnable fortress but one from which the garrison can never sally forth. We can safely bypass the RAW solipsists and leave them to fester in their fortress."

I don't understand how you've got to 6 pages, there is clearly no debate here.

ICs are considered part of units they join.
The painboy abilty effects all models in their unit.
Therefore the IC is in that area of effect and gains FNP.

Just like Doc Grotsnik joining another unit (or even just another IC) and granting them feel no pain. They're all one unit therefore all within the area of effect of the doc's tools.

I think too many people seem to have got confused with different situations where its an innate abilty. If it where a rule attached to the models (like plague marines) then it would not be passed on. But thats not the case here.