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.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Please read as much of the 2 threads regarding this issue as possible before posting as I would like to see intelligent/NON-inflamitory posts on this.

Below is Yakfaces response to this issue. I felt it was very nuetral
--------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this thread. It is very well thought out, explained and (for the most part) well-mannered discussion on a very complex subject.

It's funny because we're working on the new version of the INATFAQ this week and we just spent quite a while tonight discussing this issue.

I still really don't know exactly which way to go on this issue, and even if I do decide on a course of action I still have to convince the rest of the FAQ council members, so my opinions I voiced before (or now) most certainly may not end up being the final ruling we go with. Although I think I can safely say that whatever ruling we do decide upon I guarantee we will have spent more time thinking and agonizing over it than GW ever did when they wrote the damn thing!

I tend to find myself agreeing almost completely with arnaroe. While the IC rules do give an example of a special rule that specifies how it functions with ICs/units ("stubborn") that doesn't necessarily mean this is the only way such specificity can be achieved. I think the vast majority of players intuitively understand that when an IC has a special rule that applies to "his unit" the definition of that term means it applies to any unit he is part of.

While an IC is indeed a unit on his own, the words used "his unit" indicate that it is referring to a unit that he is part of, for at least the reason that nowhere else in the game is that term ever used to describe a lone IC.

So to me, it really isn't a question of whether or not someone like Mad Doc Grotsnik passes his FNP ability onto the unit he joins (he does), but the crux of the issue still remains whether or not another IC joining such a unit gains the special rules granted by 2nd IC joined to the unit (like Snikrot or a Chaplain, etc) or piece of wargear (like a Waaagh Banner, etc).


The more I think about it, the more I think you have to rule one way. If you're going to allow ICs to gain abilities from joining a unit sometimes then you have to do it all the time, which means Ghazghkull ambushing with Snikrot. And if you're going to rule the opposite way, then again you have to go all the way, which means an Apothecary doesn't provide FNP to ICs joined to a command squad. Because there just isn't any defining line you can draw in the sand to clearly make a ruling one way on one and the other way on the other.


Although I do think you can stick just with "special rules" a.ka. those rules found in the "special rules" of a unit's entry. That would clear things like the Waaagh Banner and allow its ability to be used by ICs joined to the unit. Even if you agree with this, Nartheciums and Doks Tools are still troublesome because although they are technically wargear (and not special rules) they most certainly do infer a universal special rule (FNP) onto the unit and therefore should likely fall into the non-transference camp.


I believe at the end of the day, the whole purpose of the rule on page 48 was to limit the ability of ICs to get crazy abilities by joining units. While the designers may likely have intended them to be able to utilize some things like the Dok's Tools FNP, I think if you go down that road as a 'ruling' you have to then allow things like the Snikrot combo. . .and that, I believe, is most certainly a case of an IC gaining a special rule simply by joining a unit, something that the rule on page 48 is expressly in place to stop.



So keep up the good discussion (if there's anything left to discuss) and most importantly if you guys can find more instances of where this issue rears its head in other codexes (something labeled a "special rule" or that provides a "universal special rule" to a unit that many people play is gained by an IC joining it) I would love to hear about it.

/end yakquote

I'm going to try and put my entire argument into one gigantic post, because I feel that even Yakface is making a large and dangerous assumption:

The biggest problem that seems to be the major source of confusion on this issue is the various ways that GW uses the term "unit" throughout the game. For instance, IC's are part of the unit when dealing with Movement and Shooting phases, but only part of the time during the Assault phase, and only conditionally when dealing with special rules. The crux of this argument however, revolves entirely around a special rule.

1) When special rules are concerned, "his unit" is not specific enough to grant special rules back and forth between IC's and units they attach to or join.

Pg. 48 of the BRB says:

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.

By citing an example, the rulebook has given us everything we need to determine what constitutes "specific enough."

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

So here's our litmus test for what they mean by "specified in the rule itself." Let's look at the only other USRs that come close to this.

Fearless USR wrote:This special rule is gained by any independent character
joining a fearless unit. However, as long as a fearless
character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he loses
this special rule.

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

I believe it to be fairly obvious that when a USR or special rule of any kind is supposed to be shared between ICs and attached Units, the level of specificity that we should be looking for has been clearly exemplified. We should look for some sort of sentence that expressly mentions an interaction between a "character" and a "unit." All three of these examples have such clarity. Feel No Pain has absolutely nothing in it about IC's or Units giving the ability to those who join them. Making assumptions about what constitutes 'specific' when GW has seen fit to show us precisely what they mean by "specified in the rule itself" is moving dangerously away from RAW and begins to open up potentially game-breaking combinations if you don't uphold the standard that they've given us. (More examples cited at the end of this post)

2) A 'unit' can be defined in several different ways, so IC/Unit interactions with special rules, must be clearly defined as in the above examples.

BRB wrote:A unit will usually consist of several models that fight
as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or
powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous
alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all
of these things are referred to as ‘units’.

Ork Codex wrote:Unit Composition: This lists the number and type of models that make up one unit. For an Ork Boyz mob, this is 10-30, while for single models like a Warboss, the composition will be 1.

In just these two examples, we have several different definitions of what constitutes a unit (big thanks to GW!...). So when a Codex says 'his unit,' which definition is it referring to? Given the ambiguity of this question, when dealing with special rules of any kind, we once again are forced to look for specifics because using an ambiguous definition does not in any way, constitute "specified."

3) Even Wargear has specific text when it is supposed to be conferred to attached units or ICs.

Codex DA wrote:Lion Helm: The Lion Helm provides Azreal, and all models in any unit he joins, with a 4+ Invulnerable Save.

Now this is just one example, but it happens to be from the Codex that I play and am familiar with. I honestly don't feel like going through every Codex in the game to find more. Whether you agree that constitutes a precedent or not, it is still an example of even Wargear being specific.

4) Even if the source of a special rule is Wargear or an upgrade character, the model/unit still has that special rule.

Ork Codex wrote:Special Rules: Any special rules which apply to the unit will be listed here.

(Note this text is also found in nearly every Codex) Special Rules are not listed in the unit box when they are conditional upon the ownership of Wargear or an upgrade character. For example: An Independent Character that wears Terminator armor still has the Deep Strike special rule, even though it may not be listed under this section in the back of the Codex. Why? Because the Terminator Armor expressly grants the Deep Strike special rule. The special rule clearly applies to the unit, despite being granted by a piece of Wargear, so it would become listed under the unit's "Special Rules" until that Wargear was no longer present.. This is a possessive phrase: if a unit has a special rule (from any source), then it falls under the definition of "unit's special rule." And as stated in the beginning, "unit's special rules" fall under the restrictions on pg.48.

More Special Rule examples:

Litanies of Hate wrote:...a Chaplain or Interrogator-Chaplain, and all members of any Dark Angels squad he has joined, leads or is attached to...

One Scalpel Short of a Medpack wrote:...He is Fearless, as is any unit he joins...This bloodlust is conferred onto any unit he joins.

I think I can sum up my counter points much shorter:

Dok's Tools: A painboy (sic: and Grotsnik who has dok's tools ) ... confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit.

Paraphrased from the BRB: a unit may consist of many models, IC's can join units and act as part of the unit (with the exception of combat attacks/allocating hth wounds ect). The special rules of a character and/or squad do not transfer between the two unless specified.

The wording of Dok's tools specifies that the painboy (and Grotsnik) confer the ability of FNP to the unit they are with. This is different from Plague Marines for example which have FNP as a special rule. Nothing is confered on them or by them.

A unit which includes an IC is a unit. Not two units. Not a group of units. A single unit. Therefore the specific wording of "to his unit" includes any and all IC's attached to the unit. This is unlike a unit of Plague Marines (for ex) who are listed as having FNP and say nothing about the unit.

In most cases, the simple answer is the correct answer.

I dont really care what other people think. Polls are opinions & this is a (simple) rule issue.

Thankfully, alot of people are either (sheep,) in-the-know on the rules, have been convinced or are me.

I dont like the bias on the wording aswell -self defeating in the whole opinion-poll styley.

Razerous wrote:I dont really care what other people think. Polls are opinions & this is a (simple) rule issue.

Thankfully, alot of people are either (sheep,) in-the-know on the rules, have been convinced or are me.

I dont like the bias on the wording aswell -self defeating in the whole opinion-poll styley.

I kinda care about it since I want to know the likely hood of when I go to a tournie if my opponent will be upset when I bring this up

and to keep with the humor theme...

I voted for Pedro.

Moz wrote:I voted for Pedro.

LOL!

I look at it like this:

Death Company *has* FNP and Rending as rules for the unit. When a Chaplain joins the unit, he doesn't gain FNP or Rending.

Apothecary *gives* all models in the unit FNP, so if an IC joins the unit, he receives the benefit of the Apothecary.

So in the case of the Warboss, the unit gains FNP from MDG. The Warboss is part of the unit, so he gains FNP, too.

Simple.

That way lies infiltrating Warbosses, though.

@Janthkin: I'm not familiar with the rules involved. Can you elaborate?

Save Ferris

budro wrote:I think I can sum up my counter points much shorter:

Dok's Tools: A painboy (sic: and Grotsnik who has dok's tools ) ... confers the Feel No Pain ability to his unit.

Paraphrased from the BRB: a unit may consist of many models, IC's can join units and act as part of the unit (with the exception of combat attacks/allocating hth wounds ect). The special rules of a character and/or squad do not transfer between the two unless specified.

The wording of Dok's tools specifies that the painboy (and Grotsnik) confer the ability of FNP to the unit they are with. This is different from Plague Marines for example which have FNP as a special rule. Nothing is confered on them or by them.

A unit which includes an IC is a unit. Not two units. Not a group of units. A single unit. Therefore the specific wording of "to his unit" includes any and all IC's attached to the unit. This is unlike a unit of Plague Marines (for ex) who are listed as having FNP and say nothing about the unit.

In most cases, the simple answer is the correct answer.

I see you obviously skipped over a great deal of my post.

Until you can demonstrate where in the rules it permits wargear phrasing to override Special Rule exceptions, you have no case.

As it stands, you cannot prove that 'his unit' is meant in the way you interpret it as opposed to the rules in the back of the Codex itself that define each unit. Since there is ambiguity in how 'unit' is defined, that does not have language powerful and clear enough to override what IS very clear in the BRB on pg. 48.

Any further comment on my part would simply be attempting to get you to read the arguments I've already typed up once that you've ignored.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Janthkin: I'm not familiar with the rules involved. Can you elaborate?

No Ork codex to hand, but I believe Snikrot's rules read along the lines of "Snikrot and his unit..." (get to walk on behind your enemies and pinch their bums).

So if a Painboy gives an attached IC FNP by virtue of giving it to "his unit," then Snikrot would let an attached Warboss tag along as well, no?

@Janthkin: I don't see the problem, then. If Snikrot grants Infiltrate to the (entire) unit, and the Warboss is part of the unit, then the Warboss gains Infiltrate, too.

The problem is that no one believes it to be the intent of the rule that a Warboss should show up alongside Snikrot. (Snikrot doesn't give "Infiltrate;" he has his own funky special rule that allows him to arrive from the board edge of your choice.)

Another problem is that these ICs are NOT part of the unit when the wargear/upgrade characters are purchased.

When they go to join the unit (deployment), the unit has a special rule, and the ICs do not. The RULES - not the wargear, but the special rule itself, has to specify whether attached ICs or units they join get anything.

frgsinwntr : For your last post on the main thread dealing with this misunderstanding over the rules meaning you just loose. You auto loose at everything.

If you go to a tournie, with that kinda attitude.. im not sure if you could deal with any problem that arises..

But, hopefully im wrong. About you. Rules I still stand by. No QFT cheeckyness.

There are people here who have played me. I often to very well sportsmanship wise. But I am sure that's because I am sexy

Try to avoid the ad Homimen Thank you very much.

# Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

As for losing at everything... actually ? no I do very well for myself in all things by asking the tough questions and exploring all possibilities.

But lets get back on topic. I am just interested in seeing how many people think each way. Could be the PhD candidate side of me and how I deal with looking at results everyday of surveys and tests

If this whole issue were about a point that was actually debateable then fiine.. all this would be great & dandy but no matter how much of an amazing guy you are or how well you are at putting your point arcross its really quite a simple issue (ive mentioned it before now lots) and not that much of an issue at that.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say

And no It's not a simple issue. I think thats really the key thing I have learned.

I know how you feel.
I felt the same way...I came in with the thought it was simple too and that the IC joined does not gain FNP.

But then I read Yaks post and Treks posts. I found out it was more complex and has deep implications for how the game is currently played by MORE than just the nob biker list. It would be really simple to say its black and white.

I think I need to disagree with you on this and still say they don't get it. But this is going to be something you'll need to live with here... I'm allowed to disagree with you, and you can disagree with me.

I'm just doing a search like Moz and seeing just how complicated this issue is...

Until this is FAQ'ed and is official, it will just be a spitting match between ork players and non-Ork players (as that is where I see the line right now).

My warboss has FNP, and no one has even questioned me on it, let alone argue like some people here....

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:Until this is FAQ'ed and is official, it will just be a spitting match between ork players and non-Ork players (as that is where I see the line right now).

My warboss has FNP, and no one has even questioned me on it, let alone argue like some people here....

The silly thing is... I AM an ork player lol (my biker nobs I've had since 3rd ed! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/frgsinwntr/PICT0011.jpg)

Sisters I just did for the GT

Trekari wrote:Another problem is that these ICs are NOT part of the unit when the wargear/upgrade characters are purchased.

When they go to join the unit (deployment), the unit has a special rule, and the ICs do not. The RULES - not the wargear, but the special rule itself, has to specify whether attached ICs or units they join get anything.

That is why one has to distinguish between unit-inherent USRs like CSM PM FNP or BA DC FNP vs FNP gained by wargear or SCs.

MDG grants FNP to the unit he joins.

Suppose the Warboss joins first, and then MDG joins the unit afterwards, then the Warboss gains FNP. But if MDG joins first, and the Warboss second, the Warboss doesn't?!? That's going to be wierd.

Also, the rule says it grants FNP to the (entire) unit, not "to the unit, except for any ICs which might also have joined."

Similarly, the Apothecary special rule says the unit gains it, not "all models of the Command Squad, including the Character for which the Command Squad was purchased, but excepting any other Characters which might subsequently join the Command Squad".

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:Until this is FAQ'ed and is official, it will just be a spitting match between ork players and non-Ork players (as that is where I see the line right now).

My warboss has FNP, and no one has even questioned me on it, let alone argue like some people here....

If this were the case, then I'd be applying the +1 A from my Standard Bearer to my attached IC's, but I don't.

I'd also be arguing that the Apothecary for 5th SM applies FNP to attached IC's also, but it doesn't.

This is not a "I play this army so I believe such-and-such" as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and sorry, but Warbosses do not have FNP as a special rule.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Trekari wrote:Another problem is that these ICs are NOT part of the unit when the wargear/upgrade characters are purchased.

When they go to join the unit (deployment), the unit has a special rule, and the ICs do not. The RULES - not the wargear, but the special rule itself, has to specify whether attached ICs or units they join get anything.

That is why one has to distinguish between unit-inherent USRs like CSM PM FNP or BA DC FNP vs FNP gained by wargear or SCs.

MDG grants FNP to the unit he joins.

Suppose the Warboss joins first, and then MDG joins the unit afterwards, then the Warboss gains FNP. But if MDG joins first, and the Warboss second, the Warboss doesn't?!? That's going to be wierd.

Also, the rule says it grants FNP to the (entire) unit, not "to the unit, except for any ICs which might also have joined."

Similarly, the Apothecary special rule says the unit gains it, not "all models of the Command Squad, including the Character for which the Command Squad was purchased, but excepting any other Characters which might subsequently join the Command Squad".

Mad docs rules don't confer FNP to the unit, just the "fearless" and "move as close as you can" thing.

I voted:

"The rules are not clear but the boss should gain FNP"

I think the narthecium and the painboy should be able to be used on IC's. In fact, the only one of Moz's examples from p1 of the other thread that I have a problem with "transfering" is the Warboss with snikrot, which should not be allowed and faq'ed out.

frgsinwntr wrote:Mad docs rules don't confer FNP to the unit, just the "fearless" and "move as close as you can" thing.

According to Budro, above, MDG has Docs tools which confer FNP to the unit.

yea... thats the problem. its the specific part that has people. Specific means different things to different people.

I think specific would say I live at 900 pennsylvania avenue washington DC...

others think... I live in the USA is specific enough...

eh?

thats where the grey area is... so its not a simple issue.

Is "his unit" specific enough? Or does it need to follow the models for what specific is that are set forth in the BRB...

I would believe they need to follow the model they set up for what specific is. But thats just me

Razerous wrote:I dont really care what other people think. Polls are opinions & this is a (simple) rule issue.

Thankfully, alot of people are either (sheep,) in-the-know on the rules, have been convinced or are me.

I dont like the bias on the wording aswell -self defeating in the whole opinion-poll styley.

I agree, rules aren't a popularity contest...

seeing this as a popularity thing is a pretty shallow view. I am more interested on actually how people think as opposed to what they think. Sounds strange but I would like to take a metacognitive approach to this issue later on and I am gathering data I will look at and try to interpret