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.

Yes! Those rules govern the process of dealing with the transference of USR's between unit's and IC's at the point of joining. But what about once the IC is part of the unit?

...And? As a piece of wargear it has its own rules, these rules are in constant effect.

I've read the thread (both actually) and my point of dok's tools having an constant effect was not addressed.

Trekari wrote: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.

And I pointed out one wasn't needed. If you feel you must keep posting your flawed and badly thought out arguments in this thread could you at least try reading some posts that don't have your name at the top.

I do notice that you didn't respond to the example I did raise, which we all know is because you can't.

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

Perhaps if you tried responding directly to the points raised against you then you might manage something more productive than endlessly repeating your intital statements. All you do is tiresomely repeat the same thing again and again and again in the hope that if you bash your head hard enough you might make it though. Unfortuntly other people like myself and Gitzbitah who understand the theory of 'debate' means we have to talk about the point at hand not continiously scream the same things again and again.

Incidently, the last time? Oh mavellous, I won't have to read your childish flaming anymore if you leave the thread forever again.

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.

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.

*yawn* Yes we know, no-one is arguing against the rule on page 48. We're arguing that it can't be applied and I do note you've failed to find any proof beyond pointing out lots of things the rule doesn't say. Unfortunatly "doesn't say you can't" is still only a valid line of argument for children.

The only mechanic the game allows for conferred special rules between IC's and units is listed RIGHT HERE.

Try reading the ork codex for a change,

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.

How can you possibly keep making this basic basic error in your thinking. You claiming something is not proof. No-one here is intrested in reading your repeated lies.

For the last time, no. Wargear is NOT the instrument which decides whether special rules are conferred between ICs and units.

Says who? Its just your OPINON. And I don't care about your OPINON. I care about FACTS, of which you have NONE!!11!1!!eleven!!

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.

And since it has nothing to say about wargear we throw that rule in the bin don't we?
I love how you want me to go and find the word wargear in the rule, when my whole argument is based on the fact that IT ISN'T THERE! Perhaps if you'd bothered to read my argument instead of listening only to your own voice you would have understood something and learned something new instead of trying to propigate your misbeliefs and would-be cheating to the world.

No responce to my point about Embolden the point where I topple your entire pathetic argument yet again? No? I guess you thought it was more important to put in an insulting holier than thou english lesson to suggest that I can't read, I can see why you thought that approach would be much more valuble than attempting a bit of debating like a grown up.....

At that point, the ruling has already been determined. The Painboy's unit still has FNP, and the attached IC still does not. There is not a second step listed that allows you to subsequently check whether wargear allows it. If the special rule itself doesn't say so, then they don't get it.

Because the default is that they do NOT get the special rule, unless specified in the rule itself, then the text of wargear is not enough to override this, particularly when 'unit' has so many possible defintions.

I understand where you are coming from, but the rules are clear that you have ONE way of checking if an IC will get that special rule (or vice-versa), and if the special rule doesn't say so, then the answer is final.

Hymirl wrote:

Trekari wrote: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.

And I pointed out one wasn't needed. If you feel you must keep posting your flawed and badly thought out arguments in this thread could you at least try reading some posts that don't have your name at the top.

If you want to debate that your view is correct, you do need evidence. You claim to understand debate, yet overlook this minor part of debating.

The only mechanic the game allows for conferred special rules between IC's and units is listed RIGHT HERE.

Try reading the ork codex for a change,

I have, and it doesn't say that special rules are conferred via wargear instead of by text in the special rule itself, nor does it define FNP differently, thus it does not override the procedure for applying special rules and it does not override the text of FNP in the BRB which does not state that IC's joining units get the rule or vice-versa.

For the last time, no. Wargear is NOT the instrument which decides whether special rules are conferred between ICs and units.

Says who? Its just your OPINON. And I don't care about your OPINON. I care about FACTS, of which you have NONE!!11!1!!eleven!!

How many procedures on pg. 48 are there for applying special rules to ICs who join units and vice-versa? If you can count to one, you can get this answer right. How many instances of the word "wargear" is found in the BRB, and how many of those instances refer to a method of applying special rules via a method other than pg. 48?

To save you the trouble, 'wargear' is found 20 times in the rules and summary sheets in the BRB, and in exactly zero of those places does it describe a method of conferring special rules between ICs and the units they join instead of pg. 48's method.

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.

And since it has nothing to say about wargear we throw that rule in the bin don't we? I love how you want me to go and find the word wargear in the rule, when my whole argument is based on the fact that IT ISN'T THERE! Perhaps if you'd bothered to read my argument instead of listening only to your own voice you would have understood something and learned something new instead of trying to propigate your misbeliefs and would-be cheating to the world.

No, we don't throw the rule on pg. 48 out, because it has everything to do with special rules that units have. If you had paid attention to the English lesson regarding what "unit's special rules" refers to, then you would understand this rule covers all sources.

No responce to my point about Embolden the point where I topple your entire pathetic argument yet again? No? I guess you thought it was more important to put in an insulting holier than thou english lesson to suggest that I can't read, I can see why you thought that approach would be much more valuble than attempting a bit of debating like a grown up.....

If you find English lessons insulting, that is only because you have thus far been wrong in your comprehension and are embarrassed by it. Your Embolden example is not a special rule, and thus has no bearing on the discussion. Speaking of special rule examples and your ability to read, I notice that you didn't bring up anything about a Chaplain this time or his special rule Litanies of Hate which you claimed earlier was not a special rule.

Its getting a little heated guys (on all sides), lets take a walk before posting and relax.

Frenzy wrote:Yes! Those rules govern the process of dealing with the transference of USR's between unit's and IC's at the point of joining. But what about once the IC is part of the unit?

...And? As a piece of wargear it has its own rules, these rules are in constant effect.

I've read the thread (both actually) and my point of dok's tools having an constant effect was not addressed.

I don't get what your saying... You're claim page 48 matters.... then it doesn't?

Can you explain your point a bit more here?

Trekari wrote:At that point, the ruling has already been determined. The Painboy's unit still has FNP, and the attached IC still does not. There is not a second step listed that allows you to subsequently check whether wargear allows it. If the special rule itself doesn't say so, then they don't get it.

Because the default is that they do NOT get the special rule, unless specified in the rule itself, then the text of wargear is not enough to override this, particularly when 'unit' has so many possible defintions.

I understand where you are coming from, but the rules are clear that you have ONE way of checking if an IC will get that special rule (or vice-versa), and if the special rule doesn't say so, then the answer is final.

These are separate events, what you've determined from following P48 is that the IC doesn't gain FNP from just joining the unit.

But the rules for the wargear state that his unit gains FNP, and if you view the IC as part of the unit then he meets the criteria to gain FNP from Dok's tools NOT the unit.

The rules are clear in that they give you only one way of obtaining a USR from joining an unit, but they do not cover the concept of obtaining USR's from an item within a unit once you are part of the unit.

I will agree that there are some vagueness in the definition of unit, but personally I feel that there is enough references within the BRB regarding the treatment of IC's attached to units as a single unit to support the single unit standpoint.

frgsinwntr -

I'm say that P48 deals with the transference of USR's when an IC join an unit, and by following this you see that an IC does not gain the rules of the unit by the simple virtue of joining the unit.

However dok's tools give his unit FNP, and if you view the IC as part of the unit then he gains FNP once he is a member of that unit.

I see these two events as completely separate events. P48 doesn't need to allow for the transference of FNP from the unit to the IC, because this doesn't happen.

Frenzy wrote:
frgsinwntr -

I'm say that P48 deals with the transference of USR's when an IC join an unit, and by following this you see that an IC does not gain the rules of the unit by the simple virtue of joining the unit.

However dok's tools give his unit FNP, and if you view the IC as part of the unit then he gains FNP once he is a member of that unit.

I see these two events as completely separate events. P48 doesn't need to allow for the transference of FNP from the unit to the IC, because this doesn't happen.

umm I think what you are describing is exactly the case. The IC is joining a unit that has a special rule and should not gain the rules wargear provides simply by joining it.

can you clarify this for me and explain why you see these as two seperate events? But remember we can't use the argument that its wargear vs innate since there is, as you said no place it distinguishes between the two.

Remember we are not arguing the IC is/isn't part of the unit, just pointing out that the rules on Page 48 would govern the way you treat an IC after he joins the unit.

These are separate events, what you've determined from following P48 is that the IC doesn't gain FNP from just joining the unit.

This is not correct. The IC doesn't get FNP upon joining the unit, period. The rules "..are not conferred." This is not "are not conferred initially, but may be conferred later." They simply are not conferred.

Unless specified in the SPECIAL RULE itself, the special rule is not conferred in either direction.

Regardless of the source.

Trekari wrote:I have, and it doesn't say that special rules are conferred via wargear instead of by text in the special rule itself, nor does it define FNP differently, thus it does not override the procedure for applying special rules and it does not override the text of FNP in the BRB which does not state that IC's joining units get the rule or vice-versa.

Yet another argument based on pointing out what the rules 'don't' say. Well I'm sure thats a marvellous idea, after all that theory has worked for you so well so far hasn't it? Backed up by an argument based on "I'm right because I say so" with laughably piss poor attempts to teach people english.

How many procedures on pg. 48 are there for applying special rules to ICs who join units and vice-versa? If you can count to one, you can get this answer right. How many instances of the word "wargear" is found in the BRB, and how many of those instances refer to a method of applying special rules via a method other than pg. 48?

Yet again, who cares?

How many procedures on pg. 48 are there for applying special rules to ICs VIA WARGEAR? None. Therefore you don't have a arguement. kthxbye.

Evidently neither English lessons nor evidence is something you deal with very well.

I'm sorry that you are embarrassed and do not realize when evidence has shut down your argument so soundly.

In case you missed it before placing you on ignorant- I mean on ignore:

No, we don't throw the rule on pg. 48 out, because it has everything to do with special rules that units have. If you had paid attention to the English lesson regarding what "unit's special rules" refers to, then you would understand this rule covers all sources.

And most importantly, with your PERMISSIVE ruleset that you love to talk about:

To save you the trouble, 'wargear' is found 20 times in the rules and summary sheets in the BRB, and in exactly zero of those places does it describe a method of conferring special rules between ICs and the units they join instead of pg. 48's method.

If you ever come up with evidence to support your theory where the rules DO SAY there is an alternate method to conferring special rules between ICs and the units they join other than pg. 48, be sure to let someone know.

I decided to just go the super ultra lazy way to get an answer here instead of "discussing" it here. I went and just asked GW, both through email and by calling their closest store to me (which is a two hour drive away). Got the same answer from both sources (and no I did not just email the people at the same store) but since I can copy and paste the email I shall do that. I also threw in a few other random questions for kicks and giggles. So time to copy and paste the email...

"Hello,

Answers to your questions are below.

Thanks!

John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist


Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop

Customer Service

6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A

Glen Burnie MD 21060


Games Workshop Customer Service is open:

Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST

Contact info:

1-888-248-2335

custserv@games-workshop.com

Or visit us online at:

www.games-workshop.com

From: ***********
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:02 PM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules questions

Greetings Game Workshop customer service,

I have a few questions about some rules in Warhammer 40k that keep popping up that does not seem to have a clear answer.

With Ork Nobz and the painboy that can be taken with them, the Dok Tools that the painboy carries states that they confer the Feel No Pain rule to his unit. The Space Marine Apothecary also has a similar situation with Narthecium. In both cases its Wargear providing the effect in both cases.

Would the Feel no Pain from these also apply to an Independent character that has joined up with this unit? Or does the rule stating that no special rules affect the independent character unless noted other wise apply here? Example: If an Ork Warboss joins a squad of Ork Nobz with a painboy, does the Warboss also get Feel No Pain from the Painboy?

We say yes, but this might change in a FAQ as it is a judgment call.

Also referring to Ork Nobz, they can take WAAAGH! banners that improve the WS of the mob by +1. Does this also affect Indepentent characters or does it just work on the Nobz themselves? Example: If an Ork Warboss joins a squad of Ork Nobz with 2 WAAAGH! banners, does he also get a +2 WS boost from the banners?

It would affect the characters in the unit, but they do not stack.

And finally, Boss Snikrot's special rule "Ambush" states that Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve they can move on from any table edge. Does this also apply to any Independent characters that joined Snikrot before the battle? Example: If an Ork Warboss joins Snikrot and his kommandos and are held in reserve, do they still move in from any table edge?

No.

Thank you in advance for taking time to read and reply to these questions. Have a nice day!"


So there we go, straight from the wrong head of the multiheaded daemon of GW. Painboys do affect IC with FNP, WAAAGH banners boost IC's WS but don't stack, and you can't ambush with Grotsnik. At least until a new FAQ or Errata get posted. Well I'm done trying to keep up with this "discussion" and the multiple threads it has created. I'll believe GW over random person #623 about Warhammer anytime so I got my answer at least. Still good job to all that didn't insane and worked hard to find a true answer to this issue and if you all want to continue then have fun, now how do I ignore an entire thread from popping up for me?

Hilarious, and yet another example of why "GW" answers can't be trusted.

Ambush=No
FNP=Yes* but is a "judgement call"

Both of these deal with the exact same rule on pg. 48, yet get two different answers. Classic. You can keep going with GW's inconsistent answer if you want, but I'll keep playing RAW, particularly since you hardly quoted the relevant rules for them and 3 different phone calls will often yield at least 2 different answers.

frgsinwntr wrote:

umm I think what you are describing is exactly the case. The IC is joining a unit that has a special rule and should not gain the rules wargear provides simply by joining it.

can you clarify this for me and explain why you see these as two seperate events? But remember we can't use the argument that its wargear vs innate since there is, as you said no place it distinguishes between the two.

Remember we are not arguing the IC is/isn't part of the unit, just pointing out that the rules on Page 48 would govern the way you treat an IC after he joins the unit.

The Dok's tool are a Codex item, and as Codex trumps BRB then where the ork codex says that it’s given to his unit, then it is given to his unit. If the unit includes an IC then he now meets the requirements of receiving FNP.

We have 2 separate issues:

1) FNP as a unit special rule being transferred to a joining IC
2) FNP being gained via the wargear of a member of a unit he has joined.

While P48 might not distinguish between the two, but the ork codex does by stating that the dok's unit gains FNP. This is a codex / BRB conflict, therefore Codex wins.

If you wish to argue against this first answer two questions for me.

1 - Do you consider an IC attached to a unit count as a single unit?
2 - Does the Ork codex list any exceptions to the unit members given FNP by dok's tools?

Trekari - The codex states the dok's unit gains FNP, that’s sufficient evidence for the IC to gain FNP as a member of the dok’s unit.

Also your attitude doesn't help your argument, try and keep it cool.

You are mistakenly trying to apply Codex>BRB here.

BRB Says the special rule must state it.

Codex has wargear that just says 'his unit.' This is not contradicting the BRB's ruling that the special rule still must specify it.

The Codex also does not state in the warger that it applies to attached ICs, which if it did, WOULD be a direct contradiction of the BRB and thus, prevail.

Special rules, unless stated in the rule itself, as NOT conferred. Not when they join the unit, not after they join the unit, not after they have tea and crumpets with the unit.

The answers from GW are the best compromise, IMO. It lets FNP be shared by doks and apothecaries, but it does not allow Snikrot madness. It may not be the best in terms of RAW, but it is the best thing for the game.

If anything though, they'd have a strong argument for reversing those 'decisions' because Dok's Tools is a piece of wargear saying 'his unit' whereas at least Ambush is in fact a special rule saying 'his unit.'

Just another example of supposed rule clarification being inconsistent.

The special rules would be the rules for dok's tools.

And as I previously asked.

1 - Do you consider an IC attached to a unit count as a single unit?

2 - Does the Ork codex list IC's as an exception to the unit members given FNP by dok's tools?

Is Dok's Tools defined anywhere as a special rule?

NO! It is a piece of wargear.

FNP is the special rule.

I don't see how the labels are confusing.

1) Yes, but not when determining special rules being conferred or not, because the rules have an exception to that, just like they have an exception for assaults.

2) The Ork Codex does not list FNP at all, so you use the definition in the BRB, which mentions nothing about ICs or Units conferring it to each other.

With all due respect, you have obviously missed a LOT of the arguments I've made that have not been refuted in the least.

Trekari,

You have also completely ignored the arguments that I've placed into this debate. You keep stating that the rules are all encompassing and that any usage of the term "special rules" falls into the catch for prohibition on page 48.

I have shown that this may not be the case and that there is eveidance to state that what you are asserting is in fault.

You are asking everyone to point out a listing that says I do not apply the prohibition to Dok's Tools. I ask you to show me that I have to apply the prohibition to any other special rule other than, Furious Charge, Mob Rule and Waaagh!. Which are the "Special Rules" listed under the unit that my IC is joining.

Zero

Then go back and read the English lesson on possessive pronouns and how it relates to "unit's."

English language says I'm right.

Please do not try to insult my intelligence. I have made no personal attaks toward you.

I did not say that the way it was written was wrong. In fact I agree with your interpretation of the rule on page 48. What I do not agree with is your view in how you apply the term "Special Rules". I see the listing for each unit in the army list and I see a section called "Special Rules". Exactally how it is written in the prohibiton.

If the game developers had place the words Dok's Tool's into the Special Rules section on page 38 of the Ork Codex, I would whole heartedly state that those rules would not transfer to any attached/joining IC. Regrettably they did not. So the IC that attaches to a Nobz unit that includes a Painboy, must abide by the Specail Rules: Furious Charge, Mob Rule, and Waaagh!.

Please show me where there is a stipluation that I have to apply any of the rules farther than listed.

Zero

If you read the English lesson and still do not understand my argument about this topic, then it isn't a matter of insulting your intellect, but rather that I cannot explain it in any better detail than I already have.

unit's= something the unit has.

unit's special rule = special rule the unit has.

Do they have FNP? Yes.

Is FNP a special rule? Yes.

FNP is one of the unit's special rules.

The fact it is not listed under the "Special Rules" section in the back of the book could easily be that it is only a special rule if you have the Painboy.

That doesn't change the English definition of "unit's special rules."

The Doc's tools confer the abilities of FNP to the unit. Nowhere is it stated they gain the special rule FNP.

Is FNP a special Rule? No. Not for a Painboy and not for a Nob. It is however a Special rule for Fabious Bile, Typhus, Plague Marines, Fuegan, Ku'Gath, Great Unclean One, Epidemius, Herald of Nurgle, Beasts of Nurgle, Plaguebearers of Nurgle, Chaplain Cassius, Chief Librarian Mephiston, and The Death Company.

This list is not complete. I only own the Codexes for Space Marines, Eldar, Tyranids, Chaos Daemons, Necrons, Orks, Blood Angels, and Chaos Space Marines.

So the fact that the Dok's Tools are not listed under "Special Rules" on page 38 of the Ork codex tells me that FNP is not a Special Rule for them.

There was no need to understand the English language that you have stated. I just read the pages and found the correctly labled sections.

Zero

Trekari wrote:Is Dok's Tools defined anywhere as a special rule?

NO! It is a piece of wargear.

FNP is the special rule.

I don't see how the labels are confusing.

1) Yes, but not when determining special rules being conferred or not, because the rules have an exception to that, just like they have an exception for assaults.

2) The Ork Codex does not list FNP at all, so you use the definition in the BRB, which mentions nothing about ICs or Units conferring it to each other.

With all due respect, you have obviously missed a LOT of the arguments I've made that have not been refuted in the least.

A piece of wargear..... With its own special rules!

1) Can you tell me where the BRB says IC's do not count as members of a unit for the purpose of special rules? I can see where it tells you how to work out which USR's they would receive, but nothing that says they’re not in the same unit.

2) No the ork codex doesn't list the FNP rule, but its does tell you who gets the rule. And in that statement is there any exception to IC's gaining the rule?

InquisitorFabius wrote:The Doc's tools confer the abilities of FNP to the unit. Nowhere is it stated they gain the special rule FNP.

yea... can you tell me what page to find this FNP ability? We've been down that road already it doesn't exist.

Frenzy wrote:
1) Can you tell me where the BRB says IC's do not count as members of a unit for the purpose of special rules? I can see where it tells you how to work out which USR's they would receive, but nothing that says they’re not in the same unit.

2) No the ork codex doesn't list the FNP rule, but its does tell you who gets the rule. And in that statement is there any exception to IC's gaining the rule?

I don't think you are reading what he is saying correctly...

1) He never says the boss is not part of the unit. But the rules on page 48 tell you how to treat the interaction between and IC and units rules after they join.

2) Being a permissive rules set, you need to have direct permission to have an ability. Page 48 tells you explicitly that a IC joining a unit with rules does not benefit from the rules unless the rule say so. Dok's tools, would need to express that "IC's benefit from this." As they do not, you can not give it to an IC joining the unit. I know it goes against common sense, but these are the rules.

Trekari wrote:No, we don't throw the rule on pg. 48 out, because it has everything to do with special rules that units have. If you had paid attention to the English lesson regarding what "unit's special rules" refers to, then you would understand this rule covers all sources.

All you ever do is endless tell me that you're right and that you've proved your point. You've never once actually shown us this so called proof.

The fact that you THINK wargear gets included as a units special rules because it sort of does something similar and thats the best thing you can find to fit it in isn't good enough. For someone who claims they know how to read its surprising that you so easily gloss over the fact that you're using the wrong rule for the situation. Perhaps instead of endlessly blowing your own trumpet about your english skills perhaps you'd like to learn some people skills and try answering a straight question with a straight answer for a change?

I bet you won't.

To save you the trouble, 'wargear' is found 20 times in the rules and summary sheets in the BRB, and in exactly zero of those places does it describe a method of conferring special rules between ICs and the units they join instead of pg. 48's method.

Sadly the only time I need to find it is when I look in the Ork codex and the Doks tools are there proving a bonus to a unit (singular). Given that the IC rules say very specificly that an IC becomes part of the unit (singular) its crystal clear for anyone [edited for insult by moderator] to understand that the IC is inside that wargear's area of effect.

Is Dok's Tools a special rule? No, therefore the prevention for special rules from effecting ICs doesn't have a thing to say about it (as you point out, that rule doesn't say anything about wargear).

If you ever come up with evidence to support your theory where the rules DO SAY there is an alternate method to conferring special rules between ICs and the units they join other than pg. 48, be sure to let someone know.

I just have kiddo...

a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈbɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-bil-i-tee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.

Courtesy of the Random House unabridged dictionary. Orks are able to do the FNP rule, without having it as a special rule while the painboy is alive and in possession of Dok's tools.

This is further supported by the Ork codex's restriction on the location of unit special rules- p. 95. Any special rules that apply to the unit are listed here.

Additional support is provided by Meganobs, all of which possess a USR containing piece of wargear- Mega Armor. A unit of meganobs has no ability to lose this piece of wargear. The unit does not have the Slow and Purposeful special rule listed in the special rules sections of either page 98 or 39.

This piece of wargear is far more clear than the Doc's tools. It says that 'A model wearing mega armor has the Slow and Purposeful special rule.

I submit for your consideration, that it is not listed under unit special rules because it is a model by model special rule. The Doc's toolkit is a similar situation. I'll even grant that the wargear has the same effect as giving the model a special rule. However, it only grants it to the painboy model.

This new, and quite unique special rule might be called 'unit has FNP'. The BRB FNP applies only to a model. Counter Attack, Fearless, Fleet, Hit and Run, Inflitrate, Move through cover, Night Vision, Rage, Relentless (although this is a tricky wording), Scouts, Slow and Purposeful, Stealth, Stubborn, Turbo Boosters and Vulnerable to Blast/Templates all reference how they may be applied to units.

Eternal Warrior, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, Preferred Enemy, Relentless, Skilled Rider, Swarms, and Tank Hunters do not use the term unit, rather they use model, rider, swarm, or some other singular noun.

A Feel No Pain unit rule is actually a rather large exception to the USR, rather than the normal state of affairs. The Ork codex clearly identifies the model based USR which it does use for a unit- 31. Other codexes that provide this USR as a unit rule are modifying the BRB and trumping it.

The reason that any special rules in the BRB that the Ork book mentions are not spelled out in all their gory details is given on page p. 95 "Some refer to the Universal Special Rules section of the Warhammer 40k rulebook." Though these are not listed specifically, we are given the example of FNP, a rule which the Ork codex modified to apply to units but did not provide the full text for.

Bear with me a moment- I hope I have just proven that the Dok's FNP is not in fact the USR, but a separate model specific rule. Further, I hope that I have shown the Ork codex is internally consistent in its use of wargear to impart model specific special rules, which do not then become a unit's special rules.

A broad grammatical interpretation of unit's special rules to mean any special abilities a unit possesses would have to ignore the distinction in the Ork Codex between wargear granted model special rules, and a unit's special rules. Remember, the Ork codex says that 'any special rules that apply to the unit' are found in the special rules section. Although Doc's tools has the effect of giving FNP to the unit, it cannot give them the special rule because that would violate the codex itself. Rather, it gives the Painboy a 'gives FNP to unit' special rule, which refers to the BRB to tell you what it has the power to do (definition of ability). It is distinct from any existing USR, and is further not a unit special rule but a model specific rule on the painboy's wargear (or painboy if you interpret it as a special rule) that dies with him.

This new special rule, much like Snikrot's, cannot be transferred to an IC that joins a unit. Neither is it lost, as it does not have an asterisk next to it in the USR section. so the IC joining the unit does not gain the new special rule 'gives FNP to this unit'. Instead, he simply becomes part of the unit, at which point he is under the influence of the ability provided by the Painboy. At no point in time would anyone but the Painboy have a special rule. And that is the long and short of my argument. I thought it only fair to form my own treatise.

Well argued.