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.

The I think the whole having all relevent rules pages and quoting them as the argument was trek's strongest point :p

Honestly,
1) The unit has a special rule (rulebook doesn't distinquish between wargear/painboy granted and inate)
2) An IC is joining the unit.
3) page 48 tells you have a IC intereacts with the special rules of the unit.

I think thats a pretty logical approach.

But seriously, please read Moz's original post as this is getting way to far off topic and into a different thing completely

frgsinwntr wrote:The I think the whole having all relevent rules pages and quoting them as the argument was trek's strongest point :p

Quoting rules proves nothing if they're not rules that are relevent to the situation. Thats the point that neither of you have proven. Given that Trek only made those quotes as part of his continuing insistence on not responding to the holes poked in his argument by Gitzbitah I'd say that in the big picture going back to basics seriously weakened the credability of his position.
Of course, you'd be more than welcome to step up to the plate on his behalf?

Honestly,
1) The unit has a special rule (rulebook doesn't distinquish between wargear/painboy granted and inate)

Quite correct. And without any evidence that bonus applied by wargear are a unit special rule in the same manner as the ones units are listed as coming with the whole theory of appying p48's restriction on ICs gaining special rules is simply one of choice. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, given that there are no rules telling us to include individual units member's wargear or pyshic abilities as one of the unit's special rules I see no reason at all why we should do so.

Its intresting that you seem to think the logical approach is that a medic stands about twiddling his thumbs while his commander lies on the floor bleeding, or that a magnificant chapter banner inspires everyone except the the captian. Of course thats not logic, its just that our opinons differ.

But seriously, please read Moz's original post as this is getting way to far off topic and into a different thing completely

If you don't wish to talk about this that is your choice, but I will defend my point when I need to do so. Its not reasonable to make your argument and then announce that no-one else should talk about it.

[quote=HymirlIts intresting that you seem to think the logical approach is that a medic stands about twiddling his thumbs while his commander lies on the floor bleeding, or that a magnificant chapter banner inspires everyone except the the captian. Of course thats not logic, its just that our opinons differ.

If we’re going fluff, then the Dok's are always looking for people to operate on, if the Boss wants treatment he demands it, if he is incapacitated he could get saved but end up with half a squig for a face.

The IC in no way or form gains the FNP rule from joining a unit with FNP, this is the situation covered by those rules.

However you then have to consider the dok's tools, if the dok is still alive then he is still conferring FNP to his unit, and if you accept that the IC is part of that unit then he too must be granted FNP

Basically I need to know where you disagree. In your opinion:

Does the codex trump the BRB?

Do dok's tools grant FNP on his unit as long as he is alive?

Does an IC attached to a unit count as part of the unit?

frgsinwntr wrote:and yes good point about the no listing of that they are the same thing.

I feel it is a safe assumption that since we are using a USR referenced by the wargear that it should follow the rules for USRs and ICs.

Nevertheless, it is an assumption and it is your opinon. Thats not a problem, but what you can't do is claim that your opinon is the rule when there is no evidence to back up your assumption. Logical deduction only works if its based on facts, if you don't have solid foundations you can't build anything on it that won't fall down.

You can't apply Human Logic to Orks if you're going to use a fluff argument

I'm not using a fluff argument, I'm demonstrating that its useless to apply what one person thinks 'is logical' as an answer. Its not the specific example itself but the way the process is being made, possibly I ought to have made that a little more clear.

Hymirl wrote:

Trekari wrote:1) Because it sets up a default condition that does not change until the Painboy goes away. You cannot simply "refresh your wargear" to suddenly apply a special rule to an Independent Character. The rules on how a unit's special rule (regardless of source) is granted or not granted to a joining IC is detailed on pg. 48. "Turn your wargear off, then turn it back on again" is not listed as a method of doing this.

But those rules don't tell you to 'refresh your wargear' either. If we held to your theory that you only checked who was in the wargears area of effect at the time of writing the list and when the model with it dies then you wouldn't be able to include ICs in that area of effect even if you where allowed. What you're saying is incompatable with the rules.

Show me an example of your claim that is it incompatible with the rules. A mere suggestion that "it wouldn't work" doesn't prove your point without an example. Do make sure that it has at least SOMETHING to do with a special rule, given that this discussion is all about those, ok? Please?

2) It isn't granted by the wargear, because that is not the procedure for applying a unit's special rule to a character. The rule ITSELF must specify, which would be FNP. The unit has FNP, the IC does not. FNP doesn't say the IC gets it, so they don't.

Yes it is, without doks tools a painboy wouldn't be able to do anything for anyone. Its that item that gives him the ability. Its that item that speicfies that the IC is included in the area of effect since hes part of the unit. What FNP says for or against it doesn't matter, its the doks tools that are deciding who gets effected by what.

Wrong again. The wargear the Painboy carries, allows the Painboy to give FNP to his unit. No rule, ANYWHERE states that the default condtion for special rules from wargear is that they are not conferred to the unit who has it. The rules DO place restrictions on how special rules get applied to ICs who go to JOIN such units. Those rules provide exactly ONE way for special rules to be given to IC's who don't have them, and that method requires it to be listed in the special rule itself. What the wargear says is NOT relevant for overriding this restriction.

1) Dok's Tools are not a special rule. I am not sure where you are getting this from, but that is incorrect

Absolulty correct, and thats they the prohibition against unit special rules being passed to ICs doesn't prevent Doks Tools from passing it's effects to attached characters. Excuse my picking this slightly out of context but its something I wanted to reinforce.

The fact remains that as long doks tools aren't one of the unit's special rules they won't be prohibited from acting upon an IC that joins the unit and as a result of that granting him FNP. Again FNP's opinon on whether it gets given to an IC that joins a unit with FNP is irrelevent since its not a question that is being asked in the situation at hand.

As I've clearly explained to you multiple times, the unit has FNP as a special rule before the IC goes to join them. Thus the ONLY allowed method within the rules for this special rule to be passed onto the IC states that it must say in the RULE ITSELF.

Since you cannot untangle yourself from Gitzitbah's post:

3) The wargear is not creating an 'identical effect.' It is the instrument by which GW represents a USR being applied to the unit. The absence of a FNP description in the Painboy entry does nothing to support his claim, as the BRB expressly states that universal special rules are listed there as a matter of convenience. There is only one category of the term "Feel No Pain" and that is a special rule.

4) Has been directly refuted. There is only ONE mechanic for applying a special rule to someone joining a unit. Refreshing wargear is not it.


You continue to miss the point, grossly, at nearly every critical juncture.

Continuing to bring up Embolden is irrelevent, as it is not a special rule. It is a psychic ability that does not even apply a special rule.
You continue to argue from the stance that a special rule 'generated' by a piece of wargear doesn't have pg. 48 apply to it, yet you have NO EVIDENCE to support this claim and pg. 48 makes NO EXCEPTION for the source of a special rule.

This debate is really going. I went to bed thinking that I was going to get up and look at the listings for Terminator Armor and I see the thread has gone on to new and better things.

I'm going to say that by my interpretaion, Yakface is Wrong. * EDIT* After reading the post from Yakface one more time I do see that Option B would fit what I was thinking. My apologies*

Reading his post and taking all the comments in the last three threads into account I do not think that this debate is strictly about "Universal Special Rules". In options A-D a USR is the main point of reference, and I think that is a mistake. Regrettably everyone keeps arguing around differnet bits of each rule. Page 48 states one thing, "his unit" means another. I've breifly looked back through the codex and from what I see I think my interpretaion would fit into the two most argued examples. Regrettably I can explain what I think accurately enough using the verbiage from GW. Many of the words are interchangeable and some think they mean one thing and other think differently.

Example.
I give you a resipe to cook your dinner. In the resipe I include all of the ingrediants. One of which is salt. When you go to your spices you see you have different containers that read salt. You have 1. Garlic Salt, 2. Sea Salt, 3. Lemon Pepper Salt, and one that reads 4. Salt. Which do you use? You don't want to make a mistake in your meal because each of these is different. Why would I need to look any farther than what is plainly written on my spice?

Now I'm using my understanding of the way the Rules for 40K are worded. On pg. 48 it specicifally states Special Rules. It explains that they might be different. Now I look at my army lists and I see different sections such as, 1. Wargear, 2. Unit Type, 3. Options, and 4. Special Rules. I understand that the bulk majority of the listings in Special Rules will directly reflect a USR, but not all.

Now I look at the two major examples that everyone here seems to be debating. Ex. 1 is FNP from doks tools. FNP is not listed in any of the Special Rules for any of my units there for the restrictions for my IC's joining these units are not ever effected by the rule on page 48. No matter what other things are granted/conferred to anyone. Ex 2. Ambush. I look at the description of the Ambush entry and see that it is indeed listed under the Special Rules for the Boss Snikrot model. I then look at the listing agin and see that it does not state that IC's joining are effected, so any joining IC will not gain this Special Rule. This interpretaion does lead to a weird dilemma, There is no * and no wording that states that Ambush won't be lost by the Kommandos, so How do I deply from any board edge if the IC can't follow? By my understanding this is easily answered, You can't if the IC is there.

I don't think this argument is plain easy. It wouldn't have gone on so long if it were. What I think is holding everyone down is the way that each person reads the rules and how they enact what they read.

Zero

Trekari wrote:
As to "unit" being specific enough: With the multiple definitions available for "unit," how can it possibly be specific enough compared to the other special rules examples? The very fact that "unit" has nearly six definitions in this game is enough to demonstrate that it isn't specific when compared to phrases such as, "Characters with this rule confer it onto any unit they join..."

The point is, while there certainly are rules that are examples of more specific wording (such as in the example they provide of 'stubborn'), they also don't clarify that this is the only type of specificity that is acceptable. As such, it is really left up to the reader to decide exactly how specific the wording needs to be in order to qualify, which is exactly why this debate has lasted as long as it has.

The rules of a game cannot just be tossed aside under the assumption they are probably in error. If we are to assume GW is just lazy, where would the list of things I want changed be located? I'd like to throw a few things into the DA Errata since they're probably just not fixing it due to laziness.

While in principle, of course I agree. The reality is, there are times where the RAW are absolutely ridiculous. The 4th edition rule that models simply carrying a rapid fire weapon that fired another type of weapon (like a pistol) couldn't assault in the same turn is a perfect example. The rules were not ambiguous in any way, but a vast, vast majority of players read the rule and instantly recognized that it was a mistake and decided not to play that way.

If a fan created FAQ goes out of its way to always rule how they feel the RAW stand even when it goes against how the vast majority of players interpret the rules then the only thing it accomplishes is to get people to ignore the FAQ.

If I were writing a FAQ document, I'd make sure the answers were RAW first, and let each club/gaming group modify to house rules as they saw fit. Hopefully that is the direction you end up taking.

The 'RAW' are not some perfect ideal that everyone can agree on. Language is fluid and open to interpretation which is exactly the issue we have in this particular case. If you make your ruling based on your understanding of the RAW there are always going to be people who disagree with your interpretation.

In the case of a true grey area (where people truly think there are different ways to read the 'RAW') it most certainly behooves any FAQ to try to capitulate to how the majority of players are already interpreting the situation. In this way, the fewest number of players are forced to change their playing styles based on a FAQ, and instead the majority of players simply continue to play the way they already have been.

Yakface,

I'm very curious what parts of my argument and clarification you do not agree with.

I also want to reiterate that a poll on these forums in no way represents a scientific sampling of 40k players, as the only people to respond to the poll in the first place are ones who had the title stir their attention, then cared enough to vote, etc.

Lastly, if you go against (what I consider to be) RAW, where special rules are only conferred with ONE specific mechanism, would it be possible for a comment to be included that it isn't RAW?

I think the results of the poll are very interesting indeed...

The Rules are clear. A warboss would not gain any benefit by joining the Nobs 20% [ 16 ]
The rules are not all that clear but the boss should not gain the benefit since he is an IC 5% [ 4 ]
The Boss should gain FNP and the rules are clear 37% [ 29 ]
The rules are not clear but the boss should gain FNP 23% [ 18 ]
By RAW, the boss should not get it. However I play it as he does. 13% [ 10 ]
Other. (comment below) 3% [ 2 ]

This tells me that:
33% of the people read Raw as FNP is not confered
33% of the people read it as Raw, it is confered...
33% of the people see the rules as not clear
and Moz likes pedro

This makes it very hard to make a decision for an FAQ ;p wouldnt want to be in your shoes yak

I thought the sections labeled 'Wargear' and 'Special Rules' were sufficient evidence of a distinction in the rules between these two categories. Fortunately, I found an example of this principle being applied.
This distinction is supported by an entirely different unit in the Ork codex- the Meganobz. This unit does not have the special rule slow and purposeful. P. 39, Meganob special rules- Mob rule, Furious charge, Waaagh!
p. 98 collaborates this listing.

A little further down on 39, they give this blurb for the wargear Mega Armour-"A model wearing mega armour has the Slow and Purposeful special rule."

This is the same situation as the Painboy'z tools. A piece of wargear which gives a unit a special rule. Even better, it is an entire unit which possesses this piece of wargear. If a wargear conferred ability was ever meant to be listed in the special rule section, this unit would be the poster boy for it. It is not.

This is evidence that wargear, even when being described by USRs, is not a 'special rule'.
If wargear is not in fact a USR, then the transference rule of p. 48 does not apply.

If it does not, then we must follow what is written in the wargear itself when applying the pseudo USR. Dok's tools give it to his unit. Anything that becomes part of his unit, is now part of his unit and will benefit from that rule.

It is sadly ironic that this was right next to the page we've all been staring at so intently!

Reserved for later tonight to explain why this is still wrong after I get back from Blood Bowl.

In short:

1) Does the unit have Slow and Purposeful as a special rule? Yes.

"A model wearing mega armour has the Slow and Purposeful special rule." And the entire unit has it. Thus it is a special rule that the unit possesses.

Once again, for the hundredth time:

unit's = possessive noun. If the unit has something, it is the unit's.

Timmy's Aunt.

Denver's air quality.

2) Does Slow and Purposeful say it is applied to IC's who join the unit? No.

3) Does a character who buys Terminator armor wargear have the Deep Strike special rule? Yep. If he attaches himself to a unit, do they get Deep Strike as well? Nope. Deep Strike doesn't say it gets conferred to attached units, or to ICs who join a unit that already has Deep Strike.

Pg. 48 doesn't list wargear-granted special rules as an exception. In fact the box on pg. 48 makes NO mention of wargear at all. It speaks about special rules, thus anything labeled as a special rule falls under this restriction about how things are shared between units.

Relentless, Slow and Purposeful, Deep Strike, FNP, Ambush, Litanies of Hate, etc, etc.

Good luck with the Bloodbowl.

Edited for an excess of enthusiasm on my part. This is a spirited debate!

1) Per page 95 of the Ork Codex-
"Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to the unit are listed here. "

Wargear may provide individual models special rules, but the codex explicitly states that any unit special rules will be in the Special Rules section.

Because an entire unit packing wargear that confers USR's upon the individual models (Mega armored Nobz) does not list the rule in the 'Special Rules' section, it is not a 'unit's special rule' as referenced on p.48.

2) Actually, it does restrict any attached Independent characters. p. 76. This is because a unit must move as slow as its slowest model. Which also provides some more support for the idea that an IC can become part of a unit.

3) Wargear only gives its rule to the character it was bought for, unless specified otherwise. The terminator example has no relevance.

P48 doesn't need to. It describes how IC interact with a unit's special rules. Wargear grants rules to models, even when the entire unit is equipped with the wargear in question. This is not covered by the BRB, so we must go with what each piece of wargear says it will do.

Trekari wrote:

Hymirl wrote:

Trekari wrote:1) Because it sets up a default condition that does not change until the Painboy goes away. You cannot simply "refresh your wargear" to suddenly apply a special rule to an Independent Character. The rules on how a unit's special rule (regardless of source) is granted or not granted to a joining IC is detailed on pg. 48. "Turn your wargear off, then turn it back on again" is not listed as a method of doing this.

But those rules don't tell you to 'refresh your wargear' either. If we held to your theory that you only checked who was in the wargears area of effect at the time of writing the list and when the model with it dies then you wouldn't be able to include ICs in that area of effect even if you where allowed. What you're saying is incompatable with the rules.

Show me an example of your claim that is it incompatible with the rules. A mere suggestion that "it wouldn't work" doesn't prove your point without an example. Do make sure that it has at least SOMETHING to do with a special rule, given that this discussion is all about those, ok? Please?

This is a joke right? Very well...

Lets take Space marine company standards. By your 'reading' of the rules, you would check to see which models the wargear affects when you write the army list and not since then. Therefore no matter which units come in range, you are telling us that you don't check to see if the status of who is effected by the gear is changed during the game. So how does the standard provide bonuses to friendly units within 12" like its supposed to? After all those units wheren't within range when the army list was written where they?

This is why the idea of 'no refreshing wargear' is incompatable with the game. While it might provide you with the answer you need in this example it causes numerous problems in many other aspects of gameplay, the only reason you didn't realised that is because you're not looking at the big picture.

Wrong again. The wargear the Painboy carries, allows the Painboy to give FNP to his unit. No rule, ANYWHERE states that the default condtion for special rules from wargear is that they are not conferred to the unit who has it.

Yey, the "doesn't say I can't" argument! Nice. You're right, not rule says they're not conferred to the unit, but because the ruleset is PERMISSIVE, that doesn't mean that they are. No rule anywhere says I can't have my marines wear their pants on the outside and fly about like superman shooting lasers out of their eyes, but I can't do that either....

Lets try following rules that actually exist for a change, and not assuming that an absence of a rule has some magical meaning that only you can fathom.

What the wargear says is NOT relevant for overriding this restriction.

According to who? Show me this rule and I'll believe you, until then; who cares about your opinon?

As I've clearly explained to you multiple times, the unit has FNP as a special rule before the IC goes to join them. Thus the ONLY allowed method within the rules for this special rule to be passed onto the IC states that it must say in the RULE ITSELF.

The fact you've stating something multiple times will not make it a fact.

Since you cannot untangle yourself from Gitzitbah's post:

3) The wargear is not creating an 'identical effect.' It is the instrument by which GW represents a USR being applied to the unit. The absence of a FNP description in the Painboy entry does nothing to support his claim, as the BRB expressly states that universal special rules are listed there as a matter of convenience. There is only one category of the term "Feel No Pain" and that is a special rule.

90% right, but the wargear is the instrument by which GW decides which unit or units are having FNP applied to them. Why can you not understand that this instrument is including an IC who is part of the unit and appling FNP to them also?

4) Has been directly refuted. There is only ONE mechanic for applying a special rule to someone joining a unit. Refreshing wargear is not it.

See initial refutation. Incidently I could have sworn there was more than two points in your list, did the other ones get lost someplace?

Continuing to bring up Embolden is irrelevent, as it is not a special rule. It is a psychic ability that does not even apply a special rule.
You continue to argue from the stance that a special rule 'generated' by a piece of wargear doesn't have pg. 48 apply to it, yet you have NO EVIDENCE to support this claim and pg. 48 makes NO EXCEPTION for the source of a special rule.

You continue to miss the point, grossly, at nearly every critical juncture.

Continuing to bring up Embolden is relevent, because (as you say), it is not a special rule. Its an ability that applies a bonus.*
You continue to argue from the stance that a special rule 'generated' by a piece of wargear does have pg. 48 apply to it, yet you have NO EVIDENCE to support this claim and pg. 48 makes NO INCLUSION for the source of a special rule.

I'm a big fan of irony you see. Execept in this case I'm pointing out that you need a rule saying its included in p48's preclusion and I'm saying without that rule you don't have anything. Again the rules of 40K are PERMISSIVE, so until you find that rule you don't have a point. I don't need to find a rule saying something doesn't happen, because thats not how the rule works, I'm defending the stance of taking no action so the requirement isn't on me to find this proof since until there is a rule saying otherwise no intervention is taken.

*(You felt it was relevent to bring up chaplains when they don't apply a special rule either but naturally with your continously inconsistent argument - just thought I'd point that out for you...)

frgswntr wrote:I think the results of the poll are very interesting indeed...

The Rules are clear. A warboss would not gain any benefit by joining the Nobs 20% [ 16 ]
The rules are not all that clear but the boss should not gain the benefit since he is an IC 5% [ 4 ]
The Boss should gain FNP and the rules are clear 37% [ 29 ]
The rules are not clear but the boss should gain FNP 23% [ 18 ]
By RAW, the boss should not get it. However I play it as he does. 13% [ 10 ]
Other. (comment below) 3% [ 2 ]

Almost as intresting as the fact that the "RAW = no" had twice as many chances to be voted for as the "RAW = yes" had. By doing so you increased the vote collecting potential for the no camp by double and produced a biased result. Wheras if we looked at the those who purely thought it was clear that he does gain FNP and that was the end of it verus those who didn't we see that there is almost double the number of people.

In short, as I predicted your poll is pointless, but apart from the fact that popularity proves nothing we could consider the tiny sample size compared to the game's populartion of players. Even 10 puppet accounts could throw the results completely differently.

1) I asked for an example that had something to do with a special rule. I said "refreshing wargear" is not a valid mechanic for applying a special rule. You continue to argue this, despite the rule on pg. 48 being the ONLY method that special rules are conferred between ICs and units.

For the last time, since arguing with you is akin to yelling at a brick wall to move:

BRB 48 wrote:Special Rules

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

This section pertains to any special rule. It does not say "Wargear Special Rules" at the top, neither does it say "Universal Special Rules," nor does it say "HQ Special Rules," etc.

The time that this game procedure is applied, is when an IC attempts to join a unit.

Unless specified in the (special) rule itself - We know they mean the special rule, because that is all that this entire section is addressing.

- the unit's special rules are NOT conferred - This is the default for when the special rule does NOT specify otherwise.


The only mechanic the game allows for conferred special rules between IC's and units is listed RIGHT HERE. There is no other method that is allowable under the rules. Any other method of applying a special rule to an IC upon joining a unit is cheating and daydreaming. You wanted me to demonstrate that the wargear's text is irrelevant? Well, there you go. There is only one acceptable method in the 40k rules for this issue, and I've quoted it a half-dozen times at least. I am doubtful that this time will make a difference in you comprehending it, but you did ask.

90% right, but the wargear is the instrument by which GW decides which unit or units are having FNP applied to them. Why can you not understand that this instrument is including an IC who is part of the unit and appling FNP to them also?

For the last time, no. Wargear is NOT the instrument which decides whether special rules are conferred between ICs and units. The rulebook has ONE section instructing how special rules relate to ICs and units joining each other, and that section does NOT permit wargear to make that determination. Only the text in the special rule itself is allowed to specify that special rules are conferred in either direction. Since you are so big on the "Permissive" ruleset thing, I'd love for you to show me in the section on pg. 48 where it also allows wargear to specify. In fact, I'd like for you to check inside the "Special Rules" section there on pg. 48 and even find the word "wargear" just ONCE.

As for the source making a difference:

It seems many of you are having serious grammatical problems in understanding the pronoun "unit's."

Possessive nouns are used to show possession (owning, or having). They are words that would normally be nouns, but are used as adjectives to modify a noun or pronoun. Possessive nouns tell you who or what the modified noun or pronoun belongs to.

Example: The dog's collar is too large.

The word "dog's" is the possessive noun. It tells you that the noun "collar" belongs to the dog. The dog owns, or possesses the collar.

English lesson over. "Unit's special rules" = possessive noun "unit's" owning or having, special rules. If they have a special rule, for ANY reason, it is one of the "unit's" special rules. This is simple English, and is not debatable. (Unless you are Hymirl and insist on arguing that the structure of the English language is now wrong.)


As for bringing up the Chaplain:

You claim the Chaplain doesn't apply a special rule, which is funny because I quoted Litanies of Hate from the DA Codex on pg. 37. Maybe before calling someone else a complete idiot, you should make sure that your comments are accurate because, you see, Litanies of Hate IS a special rule.

Oh, and it actually specifies who it is conferred to like pg. 48 wants. But hey, only the rulebook says the special rule has to specify things, and I know you don't really care about what the rulebook says.

You're still assuming that a special rule belonging to 1 member of a unit also belongs to the unit as a whole. I do not accept this assumption.

I am a member of my family. My family's home is therefore my home. My underpants, however, are mine - not my family's.

FNP is conferred to the unit by the Painboy. The unit has FNP. If you claim it is only his rule, then only he can use FNP. This is not what the text says.

The Painboy brings enough cookies for the whole class. The whole class now has cookies, but they are not the class's cookies. They are the Painboy's cookies that he has given to the class. If the Painboy didn't make it to school, then no one would have cookies. Little Painboy is the sharing type, and passes out his cookies to the whole unit. Ooops, I mean class.

Now the class's text books are not owned by any member of the class. They are there for any class member to use.

There is a very large difference between everyone in a group owning 1 of something, and the group owning something.

I just wonder why there is a ton of new users with almost no post counts posting here.. is it the same people bringing their arguemnt that many times around?

Somehow, I knew that even posting the definition and example of a possessive noun would result in someone still reading it wrong.

Did you miss, or simply ignore, the part where 'possession' does not require owning, but merely having?

The whole class now has cookies.

If the Painboy didn't make it to school, then no one would have cookies.

If the unit does not have FNP, then they can't make FNP rolls. According to your claim of requiring ownership (which any English teach would correct you on), only the Painboy would get to make FNP rolls as he is the only one who has it.

So if that's what you want your loophole to look like, despite being incorrect, then only the Painboy has FNP and nobody else benefits from it, ever.

Kallbrand wrote:I just wonder why there is a ton of new users with almost no post counts posting here.. is it the same people bringing their arguemnt that many times around?

I wasn't aware that anyone you deem 'new' isn't allowed to post here. My understanding is that if I agreed to the forum rules, that I was a member of the forum and allowed to post. Forgive me if I haven't been playing 40k for 20 years and didn't sign up on dakkadakka.com the moment it was created.

Trekari wrote:
If the unit does not have FNP, then they can't make FNP rolls. According to your claim of requiring ownership (which any English teach would correct you on), only the Painboy would get to make FNP rolls as he is the only one who has it.

So if that's what you want your loophole to look like, despite being incorrect, then only the Painboy has FNP and nobody else benefits from it, ever.

His wargear gives the FNP ability to his unit. Only he has this rule, which is why when he dies the unit no longer is able to use the FNP ability. I was attempting to correct the idea that units possess special rules that all of their members have gained through wargear with a humorous example.

Any English teacher would certainly correct the common error of assuming that a synonym has precisely the same meaning as the original word. From a strict structural reading, the Painboy only grants a Feel No Pain 'ability' to his unit. This is grammatically distinct from a special rule. 'Special rules' is a commonly used phrase in the rules. When it is not used, the item in question is not a special rule. This is a precise grammatically correct argument.

The loophole I was attempting to illustrate was that of a model's special rules being mistaken for a unit's special rules. There is no distinction in the text for the FNP universal special rule because none is necessary; the rule explicitly states that it refers to a model. The Painboy's wargear, even if it was taken for a USR, then a phrase on page 74 would relieve it of strict adherence to the universal definition of Feel No Pain. "as this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence (representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race)." FNP of Dok's Tools is model special rule which grants an ability to a unit. This is very different from a rule that grants FNP to a single model.

Independent Characters can join units, and function as units with a few exceptions. The exceptions are categorically listed. They do not include anything about abilities. Grammatically speaking, an independent character joining a unit with a unit wide ability will gain that ability. This is stated in the language of the ability, not the Independent Character.

Again, your loophole leaves you with nothing.

Find me the FNP 'ability' in the rules. I believe all you will find is a FNP Universal Special Rule.

Only the Painboy has the wargear. The unit has the rule because of this. The Painboy is not the only model that carries the wargear, but not the only one with the rule.

Pg. 74 would not relieve it of the restriction. To do so would require the text for FNP to be listed in the Codex itself.

I'd allow you to use the definition of FNP from your Ork Codex if you'd like, but if for any reason (say...it isn't listed) you refer back to the USR in the BRB, then you are using a USR, not an ability.

You can continue to split hairs until you're blue in the face, but the rules do not support your argument.

That does rather complicate the idea of making an argument based on grammar.

Interpretation of this rule needs to be consistent. If we rigidly require the language to match up, as you have asked us to for imparting FNP to a unit, then surely we must apply the same rigor to defining a unit's special rules.

To me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, at this point you are arguing that any special ability, rule or variation from the normal state of things is a unit's special rule, whether it is on one model, all models, or in the special rules section of a unit listing.

At the same time, you are arguing that the special rules must explicitly state that they apply to Independent characters. Referencing his unit, or the unit is not enough.

Doesn't this strike you as a bit of a double standard? Both would need to be seen as liberal, or restrictive for an unbiased analysis.

The FNP USR doesn't need to allow IC's to be given the rule because the unit's FNP is an constant effect of dok's tools.


Again ill request that you point out which of these points you disagree with.

The codex trumps the BRB.

Dok's tools grant FNP to his unit as long as he is alive.

An IC attached to a unit count as part of the unit.

As part of the Dok's unit, the IC meets the criteria to receive the FNP USR from the dok's tools (NOT from the unit itself).

The reason I mention the ability is most definitely a USR, is because there is no alternate definition anywhere in the Ork Codex for a "FNP ability." The ONLY possible interpretation is that they mean the FNP USR, or the entire piece of wargear has absolutely no effect whatsoever.

I am not arguing that ANY special variation is a unit's special rule.

For instance, the Banner which applies +1A to models within it's unit is not a special rule as it is not defined anywhere as being such. (Unfortunately this is a bad example for pg. 48 because during assault the IC doesn't count as a member of the unit anyways, but hopefully you see my distinction.) A better example would be Azreal's +4i save that he confers via wargear to all models in any unit he joins, along with himself. This is not a special rule. Neither "Lion's Helm" nor a +4 Invulnerable save is listed as being a special rule. Please note that this is not bias. I do not even field Azzy in my army - I merely use that as an example because it's in my Codex and I don't have to go looking through a dozen pdfs for it.

Anything that IS a special rule however, must be specific that it applies to attached ICs or units that ICs attach to in order for them to share it. Litanies of Hate, FNP, Scout, Infiltrate, Ambush, One Scalpel Short of a Medpack, etc. If something is defined as a special rule, then it has to be specific like pg. 48 demands.

Frenzy wrote:The FNP USR doesn't need to allow IC's to be given the rule because the unit's FNP is an constant effect of dok's tools.


Again ill request that you point out which of these points you disagree with.

An IC attached to a unit count as part of the unit.

As part of the Dok's unit, the IC meets the criteria to receive the FNP USR from the dok's tools (NOT from the unit itself).

NO. You are skipping over the procedure for actually joining the IC to the unit, which is where pg. 48 comes into play.

Again, I'll mention for the thousandth time, that only ONE method of applying special rules between ICs and units exist. That is by looking at the special rule itself (FNP is the only special rule in this scenario) and checking for specific language THERE.

Would you roll 10 stormbolter dice for a 5-man terminator squad, hit with 7 of them and tell me I have to make 7 saves without rolling for wounds? No, because you are skipping a required procedure.

Your missing the point.

I agree that you go through the normal procedure of joining the IC to the unit, and at that point the IC does not get FNP. But this is where you've stopped.

Because dok's tools are a constant effect, once he is a member of the unit he gains FNP from dok's tools as part of the dok's unit (the wargear doesn't need to 'refresh' its a consant effect).

Of course I wouldn't do that, thats not in the rules.
However Dok's tools do have a set of rules that your train of thought ignores.

Again, no. The ONLY method that 40k permits for you to apply special rules between units and ICs (which is only determined when they go to join the unit), is by having the special rule itself specify.

Dok's Tools is not a special rule. It is a piece of wargear.

FNP is the special rule, and it does not specify that Units and ICs share this in any way upon joining. Please read the entire thread rather than making me re-post the rebuttal over, and over again.